Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.

https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption

Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-beef-industry-fueling-amazon-rainforest-destruction-deforestation/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-06-02/almost-a-billion-trees-felled-to-feed-appetite-for-brazilian-beef

If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌

Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

  • Poxlox@lemmy.world
    4924·
    3 days ago

    All you fuckers act like your individual choice to not eat meat or have kids won’t just have another eat up the same resources or have kids in your stead. We need smart people to have ethical kids and we need extreme systematic political change for any real affect whatsoever. Even if the ENTIRE WORLD dropped red meat, while still a good chunk, it’s only 6% of our global annual emissions that we’d save. The top 3 sectors for emissions are energy transportation and general industry which makes up about 75% of global emissions, at about 25% each. The individual choices not mattering as much as political systematic change is huge, and that won’t happen if the Trumpers are having most of the kids and we’re having stupid divisive arguments about what our individual food choices should be.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      223·
      3 days ago

      It’s enough to make it difficult to keep to 2C climate targets on its own. Its not something we should ignore - especially since much of it comes in methane emissions which means reduction in it can be felt quicker and reduce chance of hitting feedback loops. We must tackle all sources

      To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

      https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

      That’s also on top of other environmental issues that it contributes to besides just climate change. Land usage, water usage, waste runoff

      Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits

      https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/html

      And pesticide and fertilizer usage is lower

      Thus, shifting from animal to plant sources of protein can substantially reduce fertilizer requirements, even with maximal use of animal manure

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344922006528

      The diet containing more animal products required an additional 10 252 litres of water, 9910 kJ of energy, 186 g of fertilizer and 6 g of pesticides per week in comparison to the diet containing less animal products

      https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/comparing-the-water-energy-pesticide-and-fertilizer-usage-for-the-production-of-foods-consumed-by-different-dietary-types-in-california/14283C0D55AB613D11E098A7D9B546EA

    • LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world
      152·
      3 days ago

      Emissions are just a piece of it. There’s land use, consequences of this land use, etc, which involve changes in rain patterns, soil acidification, and so forth.

    • rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
      147·
      3 days ago

      I agree that systemic change is important, too, but 6% of global emissions attributable to a single factor is HUGE. Plus, it’s not one or the other. Changes by individuals supports change at a systemic level.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        31·
        3 days ago

        From a selfish perspective, why should the entire populace be forced to give up small luxuries in their increasingly difficult lives just so that a handful of large corporations don’t have to make any changes?

        Why isn’t it that these large corporations should be forced to change, thus removing the need for everyone getting rid of their small luxuries?

        Just seems ridiculous that the message is “everyone should give up their creature comforts and live as simply and tediously as possible so that billionaires don’t have to change”.

        • rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          3 days ago

          Just seems ridiculous that the message is “everyone should give up their creature comforts and live as simply and tediously as possible so that billionaires don’t have to change”.

          I never said that. On the contrary: All of it will have to change if life on this planet is supposed to remain livable, and it’s gonna involve quite a bit more than giving up red meat. I also think that having broad public support for that change, built on many individuals who choose to implement it, will make it easier to impose the same demands (e.g., through policy) on corporations and the wealthy. Given that billionaires are not exactly known for being selfless, waiting for them to do the right thing seems like a losing strategy to me.

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip
        21·
        3 days ago

        Changes by individuals supports change at a systemic level.

        I’m interpreting that as changes by individuals supports changes by corporations and it’s making zero sense.

        • rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
          41·
          3 days ago

          I used “systemic” with regards to policy. I don’t think corporations change much by themselves without a strong monetary incentive (e.g., shifts in customer preferences) or external pressure (e.g., policy). Changes in individuals are helpful for both of these.