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.

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    What bother’s me about these sorts of posts is they don’t give people a consumption goal. Blindly telling everyone to consume less isn’t exactly fair. Say, for example, there’s person A who consumes 1 unit of red meat per month, and person B who consumes 100 units of red meat per month. If you say to everyone “consume 1 unit of red meat less per month”, well, now person A consumes 0 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 99 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Say, you tell everyone “halve your consumption of red meat per month”, well, now person A consumes 0.5 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 50 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Now, say, you tell everyone “you should try to eat at most 2 units of meat per month”, well now person A may happily stay at 1 unit knowing that they’re already below the target maximum, they may choose to decrease of their own accord, or they may feel validated to increase to 2 units of red meat per month, and person B will feel pressured to dramatically, and (importantly, imo) proportionally, reduce their consumption. Blindly saying that everyone should reduce their consumption in such an even manner disproportionately imparts blame, as there are likely those who are much more in need of reduction than others. It may even be that a very small minority of very large consumers are responsible for the majority of the overall consumption, so the “average” person may not even need to change their diet much, if at all, in order to meet a target maximum.

    • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I don’t think it’s necessary to compare yourself to others here. The consumption goal should just be to consume less and every effort makes a difference. If you eat red meat every day, then try every other day. If you already do that, try once a week. If you feel you can consume even less then have it as a rare treat or just cut it out entirely.

      • CannedYeet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Perspective matters. There’s a couple things you can do to majorly reduce your carbon footprint. Beyond those it gets increasing difficult to have smaller and smaller effects. At some point the next most effective things to do with your time and effort become

        • do activism
        • earn more money
          • to buy offsets
          • to donate to activist charities

        The time and effort you spend living like a weirdo has an opportunity cost that you could be doing those things. Furthermore it looks bad. There was a study that found that when you tell people that tackling climate change requires major sacrifice, they became more likely to deny climate change is even real.

    • markko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The bulk of your post is probably the reason why consumption goals aren’t given - it’s not going to be the same for everyone.

      Anyone who only eats 1 steak per year is unlikely to see a general statement like “reduce your red meat consumption” and think “oh no, I’m eating too much red meat”, because they are likely well aware of how much the average person eats compared to them.

    • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      A sustainable diet leaves room for 2 chicken breasts a week

      (Really, 2 servings of fish / poultry per week. No red meat.)

      The average person outside of developing nations vastly outpaces this consumption rate.

      The small, single-digit percent of the population that’s vegetarian/vegan, as well as people who are experiencing food insecurity and do not have consistent access to meat are ahead of the curve from a sustainability perspective.

      When 95+% of people who have the means to dictate their meal choices do not achieve the target reduction it’s generally safe to say everyone who eats meat needs to cut back.