Eh, in all fairness the meat & dairy industry is one thing that we as consumers really do need to take a bulk of responsibility for. I say that as a devout meat eater.

BUT, governments could go a long way by not subsidising dairy and meat and instead subsidising protein alternatives. It's fucking nuts to me that it costs more for me to buy plant protein.

(Before the die hard vegans come at me saying you don't need to eat pseudo (plant) proteins to eat less meat, please remember you're trying to convert people that are familiar and enjoy one diet to another. You're not going to encourage anyone by advocating a cold-turkey or 0% meat approach. I hate that I have to put this disclaimer here, but I'm fed up with arguing with puritanical vegans that overshadow pragmatism.)

Business execs are cloaked reapers. It's pretty interesting that these people continue to reproduce though, while still fully railing against any chance at a decent world to live in. I guess I'm not surprised they wouldn't care or have the foresight to worry about even their own blood's future - it's exactly what led us here.

Some upstanding citizen with a terminal illness should use the opportunity to make an example out of these worthless parasites.

Whose responsibility is it what to consume, if not the consumer's?

The Guardian is very much a neoliberal newspaper (some people confuse it with being Leftwing because, like most neolibs, they're also liberal on moral subjects) so it is usually against regulatory solutions and heavilly favours using Nudge Theory to influence the masses.

So yeah, you'll see a lot of articles about how people should become Vegetarian because of the emissions from livestock farming and very few demanding, for example, regulation of aircraft emissions (though there is a single Opinion writter there which does not suffer from profitability-prioritizing-thinking when it comes to ecological subjects).

The oil industry is, of course, doing all that polluting for the sheer fun of it. Our collective consumption habits, esp. in the PRIVILEGED western countries, have absolutely nothing to do with it.

There is no sustainable way to eat the amount of meat we do, no matter how much or how little capitalism gets involved. Even assuming the absolute best (aka unrealistic) stats for grass-fed cows, we'd still have to reduce our meat consumption to 1/7 of where it currently is. Do you think that is doable just by destroying some companies? Do you think people would just accept that???

Since around 2018 we have known that agriculture, specifically the raising of cattle, spews out more harmful emissions than the oil industry does.

Not really. The meat industry makes INSANE amounts of GHG emissions. Whataboutism surely won't solve climate change.

Most importantly cement. Believe it or not it's a huge chunk of pollution and requires a lot of energy to produce. Even funnier is the fact we do have eco-friendly cements but they are not being used because they are a bit more expensive and no demand.

Every car is the same shape and only comes in one shade of brown. They are required to have large, graphic advertisements across the sides warning about the environmental impact.

I actually think that would be very effective. It would also make every city very depressing to live in. However, we could mitigate that by populating the streets with colorful plants and art.

Ughhhh UBI is flawed because it makes government spending astronomical even with a carbon tax. A Means Tested Basic Income works better than UBI because it prioritizes those who need help the most (e.g. those who are impoverished rather than everyone). I'm not an econ expert but the topic from the National Speech and Debate Association is on fiscal redistribution so I've been studying it a bit. I feel really pretentious saying this but UBI doesn't work as well as Means Testing does.

have you seen the prices of beans and rice?? i save a lotta money by not eating meat. even with the outrageous subsidies poured into meat it can still hardly compare.

Meat is cheap because of govt subsidies. And lab grown meat will soon be able to undercut slaughtered meat in price without those subsidies, so the whole “let poor people eat what they can afford” argument will switch sides in the coming years without new protectionist governmental policies.

Sure there's people that just buy what's cheaper. But there's also people who consciously make the choice of eating meat having the possibility of not doing so. It makes sense to target that part of the population.

Now, if subsidies to the meat and dairy industry was redericted to plant-based farming, then the only reason left to consume animals would be people's choice of personal pleasure over ethical and environmental factors

Meat is cheap now huh?

I'm not going to argue with your sentiment, but your above arguments are either weak or factually wrong. This doesn't help your cause.

A less then 10% increase in health risks is really a deciding factor, particularly against a cultural and dietary staple to many.

As for beef production, time to slaughter is often between 6 to 8 months, and not years.

Feeding cows edible food, drinkable water, on farmable land

most cows eat mostly grass. the bulk of the water they get is the water in the grass.

I wonder who is your target audience for posts like this. People who made the choice to eat meat on the basis of rational deliberation but are missing some key facts?

Pretty much everyone hopefully knows that meat is not great for the environment, is more wasteful to produce simply due to thermodynamics, that red meat is not very healthy, and that the ethics of eating meat are pretty clear cut.

We just don't care cause it's tasty as fuck. No amount of facts and sound ethical arguments will make a steak not taste amazing.

edit: for what it's worth, I don't care if they put warnings on meat. Doesn't make it any less tasty.

That's cool and all but I'm gonna keep eating meat lol

Are you a bot?

You should salt, generally season, your board, not the steak. Unless you actually brine/marinate the thing.

I was thinking this. There was an accompanying cultural shift in general. The labels weren't telling them anything they didn't already know. In the case of smoking, the data was unambiguous and directly impactful.

With meat, I'd suspect most of the target audience would roll their eyes and buy anyway. Especially since the labels would be on almost every package, and that asks folks to decide that every single food they've eaten their entire lives is a dire existential threat to humanity. That's asking a lot of folks. While it's occasionally tossed about in the media about meat having climate impact, it is nowhere near as ubiquitous as the smoking is bad. Besides, folks have been told again and again that fossil fuels are "the" problem, and that sounds nicer and easier and thus for most people there is an inclination to decide that is sufficient.

Weird, vegetables are more expensive than meat.

You must have been getting ripped off.

...or plants.

I ate fried grasshoppers once and it was seriously good. The buggers tasted like shrimps.

🫘🫛

You probably wouldn't buy it, which is the point.

I haven't watched this video, but I do wanna point out that this channel also made a video called "vegan diets don't work", which was full of correlation = causation, cherry picking or straight up misrepresenting data, and just generally going against the scientific consensus on several key issues in that video.

I'm strapped for time, so I'll just paste one of the comments under that video here:

Veganism is not healthy because more than 50% of vegans quit -> following the same logic: exercising is not healthy because 90% of people quit after the first 3 months

• Bases knowledge of Western Prices almost century-old studies (1927 and 1939) instead of relying on the most recent state-of-the-art studies

• Refined foods = Veganism (folowing this logic, white bread is only eaten by vegans)

• Netherlands and Montenegro have the tallest people in the world and at the same time they drink a lot of milk, this is correlation and not causation.

• The study itself overlooked individuals and instead focused on average, this is an ecological fallacy. We could say the same about smoking, if you plot smoking and timespan per country we could say the more people smoke the longer their lifespan is, which is ridiculous.

See for yourself the remaining of the video, this continues on!

So probably take this one with a big grain of salt.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

oh, god, it's the "What I failed to learn" channel.

For everyone one of his meat shilling videos there are dozens of debunking videos. Doesn't matter because people love to watch good news about bad habits.

We need to do all of it, it's not an either-or. That luxury is long gone.

Eyup... Energy, construction and transport contributes the most, with energy being the mother of all emissions:

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

soylent is awesome.

That... Doesn't apply in this context

Tens of thousands of people across Europe already don't own anything anymore because of recent calamities caused by climate change, yet people continue to bring in this stupid phrase trying to say that the solution will be worse than what we are already going through because of the many mistakes we made in managing resources, of which food production is one.

when no burger :(

Oh boohoo we can’t keep doing unsustainable stuff forever, so sorry.

GTFO Diogenes