• 𝕱𝖎𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖈𝖍@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    My partner and I are flexatarians, it’s lovely. The only downside is that it’s hard to not eat carb heavy, which is also an issue with vegetarianism and veganism. I feel like a spy among vegetarians.

    I really don’t eat a lot of meat. When I do it’s usually chicken, sausage, or broth. The latter two are great for using bits of the animal that wouldn’t normally be consumed alone.

  • Trashboat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Maybe I’m being too pessimistic, but feels like this is yet another study to add to the mountain of evidence that people will ignore because they’ve deemed the taste of meat worth an impending global calamity. When will the average persons tipping point be? When oceanfront property is available in Tennessee?

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 years ago

      When will the average persons tipping point be?

      When its too expensive to buy meat. Its not like this is new either. Here’s meat consumption over the last 100 years in the USA:

      It tracks decently with the rise in GDP in the USA:

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Individual people choosing to “do the right thing” is never going to work. It doesn’t matter if any individual chooses the right food, or kind of car, anything else.

      Blameing people for not cutting their meat intake, is misplaced.

      The government needs to change the market by subsidizing “good” things and taxing “bad” things. That’s the only way to change behavior at scale.

  • Chris@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    I’m watching the new climate town video as I see this.

    Glad the media is still telling us it is our fault as consumers while industry and governments actively work against us.

    Yes eating plants is better for the environment and your body. Yes I try to eat mostly plants and I encourage you all to try it, but Capitalism is what is killing us and eating a salad isnt going to fix it.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      Actually, quite the opposite. As long as you buy beef, cattle will continue to be a major driver of climate change. Under capitalism, it only gets produced because you buy it

  • 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 years ago

    i cut down my meat consumption to almost zero. maybe some beef pho on the weekend sometimes… but i HATE the term flexitarian… i refuse to call myself that…

  • lettruthout@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    For me being flexible help ramp down my consumption of meat. Each day without was a win. These days it’s very rare that I eat any meat. It’s become boring compared to the fun of a meatless diet.

  • 🇨🇦 tunetardis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 years ago

    I guess I’m essentially a flexitarian at this point, though I have never labelled myself as such. I tend to opt for non-meat options but am nowhere near vegan as I only learned after my daughter started dating one. What an incredible minefield it is! You have to sit around and analyze absolutely everything. Like can you believe pepsi is vegan but not diet pepsi?!? But diet coke is. I don’t know about coke zero and am frankly afraid to ask…

  • Outsider9042@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    Are we doing this again?

    The are 100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions. States can test nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean; nah eat a salad for lunch.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      States can test nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean

      They generally can’t.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty

      The Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), formally known as the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, prohibited all test detonations of nuclear weapons except for those conducted underground. It is also abbreviated as the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) and Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (NTBT), though the latter may also refer to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which succeeded the PTBT for ratifying parties.

      But even if they could, how would that relate?

      Global warming isn’t a function of nuclear weapon testing.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      And what do those companies produce? A lot of them make food. They don’t give a fuck as long as people keep eating insane amounts of meat.

      But if it makes you feel better, abdicate your personal responsibility and point the finger. But no matter how you vote, it won’t save the world as long as meat production is going up. They don’t raise the cows if you don’t buy the beef

      • TheWeirdestCunt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        Ah yes concrete manufacturers, one of the largest producers of greenhouse gasses, are only doing it because of meat eaters. Fun fact, the number one producer of greenhouse gasses in France isn’t an entire industry, there’s a single concrete factory that outweighs every other greenhouse gas producing industry in the country.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      Yes.

      The best thing you can do to limit global warming without political power is to not reproduce. The next best thing is to quit eating meat. The less meat you eat the better. And as a bonus it’s highly unlikely to be as much of a sacrifice as not having a wanted child.

      • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 years ago

        The best thing you can do to limit global warming without political power is to not reproduce

        This relies on some assumptions that I question. Each person doesn’t contribute a fixed amount to emissions, and it’s not even a bell curve distribution. The rich contribute orders of magnitude more to the problem than the poor. The top 1% contributes almost twice as much as the bottom 50%..

        And with birth rates where they’re at, at different levels of income/wealth, I’m thinking that plenty of childless people can contribute more to the problem than an entire bloodline of people who have huge families.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          That’s complete bullshit as the article is based on complete bullshit.

  • 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 years ago

    You know what could also limit global heating? If the fucking wealthy stopped flying in their private jets and stopped cruising in their yachts and stopped buying their 3rd house. Focus on the solutions. Subsidize green energy, tax the oil companies, ban private jets, etc. You know, things that would have an actual impact.

  • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 years ago

    Ya know what would also limit it: Actually stopping like the top 5 companies causing like 60% of all pollution.

    Just stop doing carbon credits because it’s a literal scam and just shut down any factory that pollutes more than an allowed amount until they get it under control.

      • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 years ago

        That seems to put the carbon produced on the buyer of a product, not the company that produced the item. It mentions electricity as one and its not like you choose how your electricity is generated. Others being land use and food production which again you can’t control because large corporations do that, not individuals.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          If there were no buyers, there would be no producers. It is always on buyers.

          • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 years ago

            And yet it’s easy to stop the production while it’s nearly impossible to stop the consumption.

              • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 years ago

                It’s nearly impossible to remove people buying something while it’s very easy to stop a company from producing something.

                • Aux@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  Lol what? Do you even understand that a company only produces something because people are buying that thing?

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          That article doesn’t back up your claim at all. It talks about an industry.

          Also, GHG metrics by volume distort the picture when CO2, by volume, is like 25x less potent than methane

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      These companies are producing products you consume. What would really limit the emissions is reducing the human population to under 1B worldwide.

  • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    US Army: ** is biggest CO2 polluter in the world **

    Media: “You should eat more vegetables to save the planet”

    Even funnier to me are vegans that argue with people about how animals are killed and how bad it is for environment to eat meat. While the military kills millions of innocent people for oil and burns a record amount of fossil fuels in the process.

    Yeah, somehow I don’t think we are focusing on the right problems.