this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
198 points (91.6% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

6629 readers
14 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

255 grams per week. That's the short answer to how much meat you can eat without harming the planet. And that only applies to poultry and pork.

Beef cannot be eaten in meaningful quantities without exceeding planetary boundaries, according to an article published by a group of DTU researchers in the journal Nature Food. So says Caroline H. Gebara, postdoc at DTU Sustain and lead author of the study."

Our calculations show that even moderate amounts of red meat in one's diet are incompatible with what the planet can regenerate of resources based on the environmental factors we looked at in the study. However, there are many other diets—including ones with meat—that are both healthy and sustainable," she says.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 82 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I don't like these kinds of articles because they always have an undertone of making it a matter of personal consumer choice as opposed to systemic change.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Systemic change doesn’t happen without political will. Political will depends on personal opinions. Try to bring in systemic change with an election win but not overwhelming support then you get reactionary backlash like we’re seeing right now.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which is why I think it's better to start with some kind of populist attack on the excesses of the super rich. How many beef burgers was Katy Perry's publicity stunt in low orbit?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RvTV95XBeo 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

WRI published an interesting article on this subject a week or so ago:

https://www.wri.org/insights/climate-impact-behavior-shifts

Systemic pressure [e.g. voting / collective action] creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It's a two-way street — bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them. When we adopt these behaviors, we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment.

WRI's research quantifies the individual actions that matter most. While people worldwide tend to vastly overestimate the impact of some highly visible activities, such as recycling, our analysis reveals four significant changes that deliver meaningful emissions reductions.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I like the bikelane analogy, actually.

It shows clearly that (a) yes you do need activism (like Critical Mass) and a few crazy ones that will bike regardless of the adverse conditions, (b) political will to shift towards bikelanes, (c ) wider adoption but also sustained activism to build better bikelanes (not painted gutters on the side of stroads, but protected lanes, connected with transit).

We definitely do not lack (a), but (c ) FOLLOWS (b). If you want to go from "just the crazies" to "everyone and their 5 year old", systemic change needs to be backed by very concrete top-down action.

Without very meaningful (b), telling people to change their eating habits while stuff is otherwise the same is like telling people to take their kids to school on bikes next to crazy SUV traffic: it's not happening.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But it has to be both if only because somebody has to show the way. Governments are not going to clamp down on meat ag when the whole electorate is cheerfully eating meat.

Personally I see the argument "I can't do anything, it's about the system!" as a extremely convenient cop-out. Any system is made up of individuals.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Personally I see the argument "I can't do anything, it's about the system!" as a extremely convenient cop-out. Any system is made up of individuals.

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. If you look at the history of regulating substances or practices deemed harmful to the public, it's almost always led by governmental oversight. We knew asbestos was harmful way before it was regulated, but that didn't stop corporations from utilizing it in everything.

The whole point of federal governments is to moderate corporations at the systemic level. Corporations know they can win the fight against individual responsibility, but they're terrified of regulation.

We've already done this with the environment once before. The creation of the EPA popularized the push for clean air and water at a national level. Prior to the regulatory action there were of course people worried about pollution, but nothing really came of it until there was a regulatory body put in place.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And all ills in the current world are the result of a very small set of people. A small group of people has been pushing meat eating like crazy.a small set of people placed tiny taxes on meat.

A tiny percent of people are the reason why shipping is so big and so polluting. I can't change that, nobody can change that, except a tiny amount of people.

A tiny percentage of people are the reason why we have such differences in wealth in society.

It's a tiny amount of people that are the push behind all wars

I could go on for a while but blaming the common people for the world's ills is disingenuous from my perspective.

You want everyone to eat less meat? Start taxing meat properly. That requires politicians to do their jobs: make decisions that will make the world better for everyone, instead of making decisions that will make him or her get elected again.

Most politicians are lazy and or think people are stupid. People would understand meat being more expensive if explanations of why would be clearly posted everywhere and alternatives would become cheaper and more abundant.

Then again, we now live in a world where all idiots have a bigger megaphone than any scientist ever had. That too should change. I'm aorry, fuck your free speech, not everybody should be allowed to have a megaphone and talk about stuff, but that is a slightly different subject. Either way, that too could be solved by a tibt sliver of people

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Oh boy, the red meaters are going to downvote the shit out of this.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Meh. I wouldn’t eat chicken these days either. You should see how it’s made. Corporate farming is abhorrent.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm kinda in this camp as well. Barely eat any meat and the meat I do buy is from small local producers where I can meet (hihi) and greet the animals.

[–] RvTV95XBeo 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

How does that work? Do you never eat meat when you go out?

There aren't a ton of places in the world with a good supply of vegetarian/vegan food AND enough of an ag industry you can go around petting your meat.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

A majority of restaurants where I live offer at least one vegetarian option on their menu, and commonly also a vegan option (they might be the same)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Going out I have lots of vegan options so that isn't an issue generally. And am not rigid in my principles, being a bit moderate makes me less of an obnoxious cunt. Easier to cook for, take along on outings etc.

If I hold hard on any principle it is that to not let perfect stand in the way of good. Being able to do 90% ethical consumption I find to be much better than failing to be 100% pure.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

i literally only have meat on special occasions because of this, the entire meat industry is horrible for animals, for your health (red meat) and for the environment.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RvTV95XBeo 6 points 1 month ago

They've gotta check with best friend's cousins former roommate who runs a "sustainable" slaughter house where they "exclusively" (once a year) source their meat.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This has been my rule of thumb for a while. It should be clear as day that 9 billion people cannot all chow on hefty ruminant mammals. We would run out of land even before it cooked the climate.

The problem with chicken farming is the cruelty.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

If you’re only eating two breasts a week, people can spring for the free range stuff

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Well, beef is already so damn expensive that I can't remember the last time we bought it.

Meat-wise It's just been a steady cycle of chicken, turkey, and pork at our house

I had no idea we were so environmentally avant-garde

[–] RvTV95XBeo 9 points 1 month ago

Good on you!

When my wife and I started being conscious about our food intake, it wasn't too bad to give up red meat, and shrink meat portions / add veggies.

It took us months of learning / trying new recipes to actually get to the point where we were consistently eating fewer than 14 meat-centric meals a week (lunch/dinner). Once we got comfortable cooking plant based dishes though, we had built up so much momentum that we went from 1 or 2 plant based meals a week to 100% in just a few weeks.

It takes a long time to build up that comfort level, but at some point a switch just flips and the new "normal" is just as easy as what you were used to.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

You're not avantgarde. Veganism is a thing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

We've cut way back on meat as well, though part of it for me honestly was the environmental impact. The only time we have beef is on special occasions and not at home (so a couple of times a year). Our main proteins are chicken (domestic), seafood, pork (split between domestic and Canadian depending upon what's available), and tofu in probably roughly that order. We have other sources of protein as well, but I think of those as the "mains" as it were.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The article barely touches on fish. It suggests fish, eggs, and dairy are mostly fine, but doesn't explicitly say that.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Dairy has the same problems as beef. Remember, you also have to grow food to feed the food, so it's inherently a net loss of calories.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

The most important part: what went into the calculation? There are plenty of things besides food that impact environmental sustainability, is diet alone sufficient to achieve it? Or did they just throw the rest out?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What about people that don't eat pork?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I guess you can have 255 grams of poultry

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

It's funny to think that you need communism for this kind of figure to mean anything.

load more comments
view more: next ›