Comment by irishloop 17 hours ago
Meat and dairy specifically accounts for around 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).
If people collectively just ate a bit less meat and dairy, it would go a long way. Don't even have to be perfect. Just show a little bit of restraint.
- Ozone
- Efficient Lighting (LEDs now, but others before)
- Santa Claus
There are certainly examples of a large portion of the population of the planet working together towards common goals. A lot of people putting in a little bit of effort _does_ happen, and it _does_ produce results.
There was a profit motive in all of those except Santa. For instance until the main players in CFCs (which were the main cause of ozone depletion) were able to invent, patent, and market an alternative to CFCs they successfully lobbied against any change. Then they got a new patent, turned 180 degrees, claiming CFCs were the worst thing to ever exist - and made a ton of money after they were banned. Same thing with stuff like asthma inhalers.
When people want to do something, we're unstoppable. But unfortunately that means the good and the bad, and right now polluting actions are incredibly beneficial, and the alternatives are mediocre and not only unprofitable, but generally incur a substantial cost. There's a reason places like the US/Canada/Australia talk a mean game about climate change, yet remain some of the biggest polluters per capita, by far.
I agree with you and that’s why I’m believe soy will conquer the humans nutrition sooner or later. It already is the undisputed king of world-scale animal nutrition because it’s cheap and super nutritious. The drawbacks in Brasil happens because of its success, replace by another crop and the problems will be even worse.
Replace animals proteins for humans by soy for human and you can divide world soy production by ~5.
Improvement of the ozone hole wasn't from millions of consumers making different choices, it was from government regulation and choices of the few leading corporations in particular industries.
Efficient lighting is a mix of regulation against worse lighting and individual consumer economic self-interest, lowering their electrical bill (and sometimes longer-lasting bulbs).
Neither of these are examples of large numbers of people choosing to sacrifice something for a common goal.
Technically most hindus don't eat meat / maybe eats eggs rarely , So its definitely possible but it would probably have to be ingrained in the religion itself.
Another reason is that we had plenty of land and rice and wheat etc. just made more sense than eating meat I suppose.
I have never tasted meat , eggs sometimes but I am stopping that as well , not for hinduism but because I am so close to this ideal , might as well do it 100% lol
I am majorly convinced that there is no god but if I wish there was a god , I wish for Hindu deities (though I am obviously biased and this explains why people have such biases even being half atheists)
Always driven by money. McD's is cheaper and easier to mass produce. Wild catch changes when it is no longer economical to fish one kind of fish. There's never an "enlightenment" of people.
Yes, a big multi government marketing campaign "Just don't eat meat 1 or 2 days a week" can definitely work. E.g. friday is "Fish day" in a lot of places (education/public) due to Catholic church influences.
Just need a catchy word and campaign for "Veggie Wednesday".
You do this through the government. Implement meat rations. Everybody is only allowed so much meat per week. So you have to make it count.
How effective IYO was Morgan Spurlock (RIP) the activist filmmaker ("Supersize Me", [0]) at trying to educate the general (meat-eating) US public on US meat production, the restaurant industry, nutrition, marketing?
(PS:it's not a dichotomy between strict vegetarianism vs meat 4+ days/wk. Can encourage people to eat healthier and more sustainable.)
All families can't afford meat daily, let alone any type of meat they want. So, some families might favor chicken and certain processed meats here and there, but most cuts of beef and lamb for example might be out of the question, and so will daily meat consumption. The same applies for dairy, they might afford big blocks of tasteless cheese, but won't touch often cheese with taste, French or otherwise. There is no enforced rationing, but choice is reduced if not removed for a good fraction of the population, purely for economic reasons.
People, especially men, get irrationally angry by even the slightest thought of their precious meat being touched (including here on HN; there are more than a few crackpots over here who promote a meat only or even red meat only diet). If there would be a reason to violently overthrow the gov, this would probably be it; not for the things that actually matter to better or save humanity, but to save their daily meat platter.
There's less extreme government action possible: tax meat & dairy higher.
There are already precedents for that, for example here in Germany cigarettes are taxed to about 70% and hard-liquor (altho it's more complicated to calculate as it depends on exact alcohol content) to about 40%.
Meat is only taxed at 7% via VAT (similar to sales tax in the US).
Not by rationing, if you meant the US government: US per-capita consumption of meat is 328 lbs/year [UN FAO]. You'd try to reduce the subsidies and incentives for meat/ corn/ soybean production which are baked into the USDA budget ($200bn in 2024), since the 1930s (Great Depression), and more since the 1950s (and related stuff like the marketing tool of the "Food Pyramid"). These will be as politically hard to cancel as defense production or military bases or prisons.
Here's even a 2023 editorial from the Kansas City Star pointing the blame at Big Ag "Corn drives US food policy. But big business, not Midwestern farmers, reaps the reward" [0]:
> No, corn is not an evil crop, nor are farmers in the Corn Belt shady criminals. However, the devastating effect of corn owes to the industrialization of the plant by a small group of global agribusiness and food conglomerates, which acts as a kind of de facto corn cabal. These massive corporations — seed companies, crop and meat processors, commodity traders and household food and beverage brands — all survive on cheap commodity corn, which currently costs about 10 cents a pound. Corn’s versatility makes it the perfect crop to “scale” (commoditize, industrialize and financialize).
A libertarian take is the Cato Institute "Farm Bill Sows Dysfunction for American Agriculture" [1]:
> The Sprawling Farm Bill:... has its roots in the century-old New Deal and is revised by Congress every five years... "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), was added to the Farm Bill in 1973 to ensure support from rural and urban lawmakers, accounts for about three-quarters of the omnibus package. Some lawmakers and pundits have proposed splitting SNAP from the Farm Bill to stop the logrolling and facilitate a clearer debate on farm subsidy programs, which make up the rest of the bill." ...aslo criticizes crop insurance subsidies (which mainly go on the four big crops), Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) ("Welfare for Wealthier Farmers"), Crop insurance subsidies (" originally envisioned as a more stable and cost-efficient alternative to ad hoc disaster payments, but they have acted more as a supplement than a replacement—and may have actually increased risks along the way.")
[0]: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-com...
[1]: https://www.cato.org/policy-investigation/farm-bill-sows-dys...
That's an incredible amount of meat. That's 400g a day per person. I can't even eat that much meat in one go without feeling the meal is seriously unbalanced. Half that is a meat heavy meal for me. So that must mean a significant number people are eating huge amounts of meat for every meal. That or the waste is huge.
Yes that stat does make me wonder. Even if 21% of meat is wasted [0]. (Possibly they count "reaches a supermarket shelf" as = "not wasted", even if it isn't ultimately cooked or eaten?). But even then.
([1], the 2023 study by Tulane University supposedly finding "12% Of Americans 1/2 Of The Nation's Beef: How a mere 12% of Americans eat half the nation's beef, creating significant health and environmental impacts" is a red herring, all it says is that on any given day, some fraction of meat-eaters exceed portion sizes ("Those 12%—most likely to be men or people between the ages of 50 and 65—eat what researchers called a disproportionate amount of beef on a given day").
[0]: https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/food-waste-in-the-...
> "Wasted food ranks as the number one material in US landfills, accounting for 24.1% of all municipal solid waste. Americans waste 21% of meat, 46% of fruit and veg, 35% of seafood, and 17% of dairy products. Altogether, Americans waste between 30% and 40% of the total US food supply."... "Poor packaging techniques causes 10% of grain products, 5% of seafood, and 4% of meat to be lost."
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditForGrownups/comments/16cpmni/...
Most ecologists are also anti-natalist, so your premise is wrong.
And if you look at CO2 per capita numbers, the average person in a developed country pollutes tons more, regardless of skin colour: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita . And there are big outliers too, like Americans, and fossil fuel exporting countries.
And what do you know, most polluters have very low birth rates. Where there are high birth rates, the CO2 emissions are derisory (you need 7 Egyptians or 20 Nigerians to match one American).
The US government could help by ending subsidies towards meat and dairy production, which will prevent those products from being artificially underpriced.
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2024/10/usda-livestoc...
Greenhouse gas emissions are only a fraction of terrible things that humans are inflicting on the environment, and meat/dairy are both nutritious food that provides requirements for sustenance, and if not eaten need to be replaced by something else that will also cause greenhouse gas emissions (aka, a 10% reduction in meat consumption does not equal to a 1.45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions)
I think it's kind of crazy to place the burden of environmental destruction on individual buying habits, rather than the people in power who actually have the ability to make sweeping changes that might actually move the needle.
Let's start with not incentivizing, then disincentivizing the mass production and importation of plastic garbage waste and e-waste that not only create greenhouse gas emissions but pollute the environment in other, irreversible ways.
And if your government and leaders don't make this a priority, and regardless of who you vote in, big-name corpo donors get their way instead, then maybe it's time for a new government.
Meat and dairy are bad for GHG, but they are also terrible for most of the other bad things we do to the planet. Eutrophication, species extinction, habitat loss, water use.
And the people in power do what the people want, that's why they are in power. Imagine telling people they couldn't eat as much meat. Would be political suicide.
That's why individual buying habits are important. If many individuals change, we might change as a society. And at some point there might be a tipping point where the people in charge can make a change.
Also, blaming other people for all the problems is not a great way to solve a problem. Take some responsibility.
Not encouraging population growth everywhere but particularly in the highest per-capita consuming and polluting countries, but rather allow them to naturally level off and even gradually decline would go a much longer way. It would enable significant emissions reductions and reduction in all other environmental impacts of consumption without impacting quality of life.
Eating bugs and living in pods sounds great and all, but if the end result is just allowing the ruling class to pack more drones and consumers in like sardines then it's not really solving anything.
I was able to cut out 95% of meat without it being much trouble.
Since my birth the population of earth has almost doubled.
Right just a little bit of restraint. On an unprecedented scale of coordination by hundreds of millions to billions of people - a scale of cooperation that has probably never occurred in human history (and there's no reason to believe it will any time soon).
But sure, if people "just" did a "little", it would go a long way. Just a _little_ restraint from the entire population all at once in perpetuity. No big deal.