Want to Fight Climate Change? Eat Less Meat, UN says

[Coyote Starrk]

If we could come up with meat substitutes that are just as cheap and tasty as the real thing then I don't think that would be much of a tall order. The problem is that the best substitutes usually aren't cheap and they still don't perfectly replicate the taste and consistency at least in my experience.

But once we get to the point where it's a perfect copy and cheaper then it's just a matter of converting people.

 

[TheGhost]

I eat a rare steak like 3 times a week. But I only recently started to eat it again after a 20 year gap of not eating it. I don't think I can stop any time soon. Unless that taste can be replicated I can't be stop. But no meat for 20 years, that has to count for something.

 

[Adventureracing]

If we could come up with meat substitutes that are just as cheap and tasty as the real thing then I don't think that would be much of a tall order. The problem is that the best substitutes usually aren't cheap and they still don't perfectly replicate the taste and consistency at least in my experience.

But once we get to the point where it's a perfect copy and cheaper then it's just a matter of converting people.

Click to shrink...

Hard to compete on price when meat is so heavily subsidised. So many of the big drivers of climate change are heavily subsidised by governments.

 

[Coyote Starrk]

Hard to compete on price when meat is so heavily subsidised. So many of the big drivers of climate change are heavily subsidised by governments.

Click to shrink...

I know. That's another bridge that is gonna need to be crossed at some point if substitutes are gonna compete.

 

[SeanBoocock]

Climate change is not up to an individuals choice. Lets not put societal issues on citizen to deflect away from institutional corruption causing a majority of the danger

Click to shrink...

I've never understood this argument in response to environmental calls to action. An individual can't affect the status quo of most "big" issues alone, yet any sort of collective action requires a large group of individuals to contribute. Voting, going to protests, volunteering time and money; these are all meaningful actions that in and of themselves won't bring about large changes. If mitigating climate change is meaningful for you, driving less, eating less/no meat and advocating to your political representatives are actions you can take.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I've never understood this argument in response to environmental calls to action. An individual can't affect the status quo of most "big" issues alone, yet any sort of collective action requires a large group of individuals to contribute. Voting, going to protests, volunteering time and money; these are all meaningful actions that in and of themselves won't bring about large changes. If mitigating climate change is meaningful for you, driving less, eating less/no meat and advocating to your political representatives are actions you can take.

Click to shrink...

Its impossible when these things are fully dependent on your survival in the current climate. i have no way to get to work without driving a car, most people i know arent going to stop buying plastic and that sits in store shelves anyway...people who eat meat arent going to move away from it unless there is an actual viable alternative that's just as good..

Its like telling people the only way to stop corporations being corrupt garbage is to boycott each and every one of them. "Vote with your wallet". Yet some people boycotting isnt going to do much on its own for the scale of these problems

Other countries make it far easier...i know in certain nordic countries, they have already transitioned to fully embracing electric cars and putting electric charging stations everywhere. But in America where most of the corrupt industries lie, that's almost like a fever dream that wont ever come true and it puts individuals in a bind. Thus the quandry. En masse, things wont change without the society making it easy to have everyone naturally make easier life choices, but we're still asking people to do so despite making things harder in a situation where they already struggle.

You and others make great points about mixing things the average person can do, as well as trying to affect change on the larger scale...

But it just seems to me like the same old shitty arguments from the right and even neoliberal centrists have used the argument a lot. "You participate in society yet you criticize it, you drive a car yet you cry about climate change". We have no choice but to do that in most cases, the root problem of most of our issues is how our broken system functions.

 

[Darksol]

I don't have offspring or drive, which I think tops not eating meat.

 

[Trickster]

100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Eating less meat won't do shit compared to stopping these companies.

Click to shrink...

This is such a weird argument to me. If one applied the same logic on a national basis, my country of Denmark shouldn't be trying to do shit about how much co2 we produce, because after all, we're not one of the x number of huge nations that are responsible for the vast majority of global co2 emissions.

Changing food habbits slightly is a small and pretty easy thing that anyone can do on their own to help out with climate change.

 

[Titik]

I recently just started doing this. Mostly eating chicken, fish, eggs, dairy and cheese now.

 

[samoyed]

This is such a weird argument to me. If one applied the same logic on a national basis, my country of Denmark shouldn't be trying to do shit about how much co2 we produce, because after all, we're not one of the x number of huge nations that are responsible for the vast majority of global co2 emissions.

Click to shrink...

Everyone should pitch in but I don't see what's wrong with this logic. The US and Western EU is responsible for the bulk of carbon emissions in the world when they underwent industrialization. They should be responsible for the bulk of the heavy lifting on climate change. That doesn't mean Denmark should do "nothing" but it makes sense for Denmark to do less per capita because they produce less waste per capita.

 

[SeanBoocock]

Its impossible when these things are fully dependent on your survival on in the current climate. i have no way to get to work without driving a car, most people i know arent going to stop buying plastic and that sits in store shelves anyway...people who eat meat arent going to move away from it unless there is an actual viable alternative that's just as good..

Other countries make it far easier...i know in certain nordic countries, they have already transitioned to fully embracing electric cars and putting electric charging stations everywhere. But in America where most of the corrupt industries lie, that's almost like a fever dream that wont ever come true and it puts individuals in a bind. Thus the quandry. En masse, things wont change without the society making it easy to have everyone naturally make easier life choices, but we're still asking people to do so despite making things harder in a situation where they already struggle.

You and others make great points about mixing things the average person can do ala captan planet, as well as trying to affect change on the larger scale...

But it just seems to me like the same old shitty arguments from the right. "You participate in society yet you criticize it, you drive a car yet you cry about climate change". We have no choice but to do that in most cases, the root problem of most of our issues is how our broken system functions.

Click to shrink...

I definitely appreciate that a lot of the things cited in this thread are hard to achieve depending on one's circumstances. To be able to make some of these changes idly speaks to a level of privilege most don't enjoy. I also recognize that some of this starts to get into to the sort of bs rhetorical attacks from the right as you point out.

Still, I think there are opportunities for most people to make incremental, individual change, even if it is just at the level of raising their own awareness about a topic. Paying more attention to stories and discussion of climate change and encouraging other's in their social sphere to do the same? That can start to make environmental topics a bigger deal in the local political scene and prevent people from being caught up in things like climate change denial.

 

[JahIthBer]

It's interesting this because while Westerners may be more open to having less meat, in the East they are finally having enough money to spoil themselves like the West has for decades & have more meat heavy diets, it's a very difficult issue to tackle.

 

[gcwy]

This is sure to offset all the damage the big corporations are doing to the climate!

 

[Trickster]

Everyone should pitch in but I don't see what's wrong with this logic. The US and Western EU is responsible for the bulk of carbon emissions in the world when they underwent industrialization. They should be responsible for the bulk of the heavy lifting on climate change. That doesn't mean Denmark should do "nothing" but it makes sense for Denmark to do less per capita because they produce less waste per capita.

Click to shrink...

Denmark's only really middle of the pack in the eu when it comes to co2 per capita I believe, so we're actually not some paragon of virtue when it comes to this. But obviously one of the reasons we produce less than some other western nations is partly because we've already invested a lot in green energy, and have done a lot to try and be more green, and continue to do so.

If everyone in Denmark had taken the "what can tiny little Denmark do when the US and China pollute so much" mindset and not done anything, then we'd be polluting far more right now than is actually the case

 

[spineless jelly]

people who eat meat arent going to move away from it unless there is an actual viable alternative that's just as good..

Click to shrink...

People definitely will keep eating meat if the segment of society that claims to be against oppression (leftists) constantly engage in woke apologism of mass animal confinement/slaughter because TaSteBudS.

100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Eating less meat won't do shit compared to stopping these companies.

Click to shrink...

So tired of this meme. It attributes indirect, third degree, government and consumer emissions to those companies, and those companies are almost entirely oil companies. Oil companies don't burn oil for fun, their demand is derived. The meme implies that nationalizing or abolishing those companies would do the trick, but they won't. Most are already state owned, and as long as the investment, state & production demand for fossil fuels exists, it doesn't matter how its organized, those emissions will be produced.
Also, here's what the author of the study has to say:

 

[Aurica]

This was a big part of me eating red meat as little as I can (I know I can literally eat none, but I'm not a saint). Whenever there's an option, I try to not have it.

 

[Deleted member 31817]

This is sure to offset all the damage the big corporations are doing to the climate!

Click to shrink...

Do you recycle

 

[Deleted member 31817]

I recently just started doing this. Mostly eating chicken, fish, eggs, dairy and cheese now.

Click to shrink...

Dairy and fish industry are hardly great either. Also cheese is dairy :p

 

[samoyed]

Fish is "okay", but dairy tends to be tied to the beef industry. You could probably argue that we can raise less cows for slaughter while preserving dairy production (butchered cows vs milked cows) but currently it has the same demand effects as eating beef.

 

[Vic Damone Jr.]

Climate change is not up to an individuals choice. Lets not put societal issues on citizen to deflect away from institutional corruption causing a majority of the danger

Click to shrink...

This. Tired of this shifting the blame bs.

 

[gcwy]

Do you recycle

Click to shrink...

Very weird reply

 

[Chuck]

 

[Trickster]

Very weird reply

Click to shrink...

The logic behind recycling is pretty much the same as eating less meat. So if you recycle, it'd be pretty weird to be dismissive about eating less meat to help fight climate change

 

[Bernkastel]

 

[Aske]

I swear in five months we'll think of another singular thing to blame climate change on instead of addressing the systemic issues that caused it.

Every energy company like Exxon knew about how bad climate change was going to be, knew they were doing significant damage, knew there were other ways to get electricity besides fossil fuels but they didn't do a damn thing about it and went about lobbying congress to protect them so they can keep doing what they're doing.

But no it's because Joe Average wanted a burger.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. Abstain from meat if you want, or don't drive a car, or don't own a dog; but remember that those choices are about you and your ethics, not about making a real difference. It's great, but it's the equivalent of spitting at a housefire: no matter how many people band together and do it, it will never be enough. Legislative change is the hose full of water.

 

[hurlex]

People definitely will keep eating meat if the segment of society that claims to be against oppression (leftists) constantly engage in woke apologism of mass animal confinement/slaughter because TaSteBudS.

So tired of this meme. It attributes indirect, third degree, government and consumer emissions to those companies, and those companies are almost entirely oil companies. Oil companies don't burn oil for fun, their demand is derived. The meme implies that nationalizing or abolishing those companies would do the trick, but they won't. Most are already state owned, and as long as the investment, state & production demand for fossil fuels exists, it doesn't matter how its organized, those emissions will be produced.
Also, here's what the author of the study has to say:

Click to shrink...

But this argument is kind of BS too. Yes, if people consumed less energy, we would have a smaller carbon footprint. However, we could switch to non-carbon emitting energy sources so that people can consume the same amount of energy and have a dramatically smaller carbon footprint.

We aren't going to solve this problem by having people consume less energy. We are going to solve it by coming up with greener alternatives. So in that since, it is absolutely the companies fault as they are the ones who are fighting tooth and nail to keep us with a coal based energy source.

 

[gutter_trash]

Exactly. Abstain from meat if you want, or don't drive a car, or don't own a dog; but remember that those choices are about you and your ethics, not about making a real difference. It's great, but it's the equivalent of spitting at a housefire: no matter how many people band together and do it, it will never be enough. Legislative change is the hose full of water.

Click to shrink...

well said

 

[Musubi]

I'm just curious though how is personal reduction in meat consumption adding to the over all reduction of damage? The main problem with meat consumption if I'm not mistaken is mainly the methane that cattle and other live stock produce correct? If that meat is already produced and on the shelf and I'm just ignoring eating it how does that actually fix the root problem of the meat being produced in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 1698]

If we could come up with meat substitutes that are just as cheap and tasty as the real thing then I don't think that would be much of a tall order. The problem is that the best substitutes usually aren't cheap and they still don't perfectly replicate the taste and consistency at least in my experience.

But once we get to the point where it's a perfect copy and cheaper then it's just a matter of converting people.

Click to shrink...

Unfortunately I think this is wrong.

You need alternatives, true. But much more critically you have to put in place concrete plans whereby the people currently producing beef can start producing these alternatives while preserving their way of life.

This is a much, much harder thing to do.

Without it you will have all these communities firmly putting themselves in the climate change is not real camp and voting for racist imbeciles because they preserve the status quo.

So change? Yes. But it needs to be done in the right way or we'll get absolutely nowhere.

 

[fontguy]

If your plan to save the world is to get everyone on earth to just spend more money in order to stop doing a thing they like and do almost every day, then it's not a plan, it's just finger pointing.

Unless massive changes are made to the systems that built and maintain this status quo, our problems continue. No amount of asinine "but guys~ if we all just composted our handmade paper straws..." articles will change that.

 

[Addleburg]

I don't eat a lot of red meat currently. 9 times out of 10 if I'm preparing a dinner with meat in it, it tends to be chicken as I find it more versatile anyway. Never been a big steak guy, and I definitely don't associate manliness with what type of dead animal you consume.

But I've still been meaning to introduce more days in the week where I abstain from meat entirely. I just find so many vegetarian recipes depressing, haha. Still, I gotta get back to it.

 

[Inuhanyou]

many people are raising points i have raised. but im not going to dismiss the notion of trying to atleast do small things. i already try to recycle as much as i can, i use my refrigerator's automatic filtration and water dispensor instead of buying plastic bottles and such...its just that none of that is going to stop the world from turning into a desert unless we actually put the onus on the institutions and the corporations actively destroying our world for profit

 

[kittens]

I believe the #1 thing we need to be doing is building community based food infrastructure and feeding as many people as we can. Build capacity and reach, and use the work as a vehicle for building community power and wellbeing. We can help each other eat while gaining small bits of independence from capitalist food systems. Eventually we can be self-sustaining and undermine capitalism entirely, giving us a much better chance at survival under climate change and rising fascism.

But yeah, eating less meat is important too lol. It's just really not the most important single focus in my view.

 

[NuclearCake]

Click to shrink...

This is the crux of the issue. This large of a problem won't ever be solved by doing incremental changes to lifestyle.

 

[baron doggystyle von woof]

- Eating meat only twice a week (mostly chicken)
- Building an energy neutral home with solar panels.
- buying an electric car and using it for at least 5-10 years.

Future plan:
- buying a cheap piece of land planting enough trees to offset my co2 output. I calculated around 10.000 trees for my family.

I am fortunate enough to do this and I fully understand this is not doable for everyone.

Therefore the government's need to take serious actions.

 

[Trickster]

Exactly. Abstain from meat if you want, or don't drive a car, or don't own a dog; but remember that those choices are about you and your ethics, not about making a real difference. It's great, but it's the equivalent of spitting at a housefire: no matter how many people band together and do it, it will never be enough. Legislative change is the hose full of water.

Click to shrink...

A lot of those personal choices you're talking about people making, that you claim are like spitting at a housefire, are actually part of what helps drive larger scale changes and ultimately also legislative changes.

If everyone had just sat around and waited for the governments around the world to start making legislation saying that car makers should start making eletric cars, then it would have taken years or decades longer than it actually has.

Same thing with all the new alternative meat startups that are gaining traction due to people opting out of eating real meat due to ethical and/or the environmental impact of meat.

It's extremely cynical to take the view that these personal choices don't matter, and I bet that come the next US election, you, or at least any US people arguing this sort of thing, would probably be pretty mad at anyone leaning democratic, but not voting because they think that their own personal vote won't matter.

 

[16bits]

how about having fewer children?

or not keeping dogs and cats as pets?

 

[Prax]

I already mostly only eat chicken and the occasional turkey, tuna, or salmon. And take public transit. Doing my part kinda!

Husband likes the red meats more but he could probably just live off chicken/turkey/fish too if he had to.

 

[Specific Power Ranger]

There are a lot of things that can be done. Ban private planes for one.

Or how about not importing stuff from the other side of the world, that can be locally grown.

 

[samoyed]

I used to be in the "individual choices don't really matter" camp but my thinking has changed in recent.. months?

Individual decisions matter but so do top down decisions. In order for collective bargaining to work, the people on the bottom have to make demands and the people on the top have to give in to demands. Neither one works without the other. Governments cutting meat subsidies won't magically make people eat less meat (unless you believe in efficient markets). People eating less meat won't magically shift government spending subsidies towards sustainable crops or meat replacements.

Both has to happen at the same time.

Okay, now that that's settled, there's the problem of lobbying and the status quo. When industries are threatened, particularly wealthy ones, they will try to protect their interests by buying off politicians. There is a similar lifestyle status quo preservation mechanic for the public. Some people just refuse to change their habits. See: coal towns in the Appalachia

Regardless of whether you think the blame lies with the consumers or the blame lies with government/corporations, or even if you think it's a mix of the two, we will have to fight against capital's self-preservation instincts sooner or later. For me, at least, it's easier to talk someone into eating less beef than it is to talk lobbyists out of Congress. The final boss, in my view, is, and always will be, global capital.

Also the implication climate change has for politics is: no more "moderation". No more "you can pollute a little if you promise to keep your total emissions low". No more trying to take it slow and easy. We literally do not have the time for incrementalist policy-making, which has done fuck all in the last 50 years except, in the best case, if I'm being very charitable here, slow down runaway climate change but is ultimately neither able to stop it nor reverse it.

 

[RedVejigante]

Click to shrink...

What?

 

[Titik]

Dairy and fish industry are hardly great either. Also cheese is dairy :p

Click to shrink...

Dairy can be alleviated and you don't necesarilly have to kill the animal for meat. I'm okay with dairy as it is a fixable mess.

I'm also more okay with chicken as they tend to be a bit less sophisticated compared to cows and pigs and it's easy to substitute them with things like frogs and reptiles which also taste like chicken because they are more similar.

 

[UltimusXI]

I believe the #1 thing we need to be doing is building community based food infrastructure and feeding as many people as we can. Build capacity and reach, and use the work as a vehicle for building community power and wellbeing. We can help each other eat while gaining small bits of independence from capitalist food systems. Eventually we can be self-sustaining and undermine capitalism entirely, giving us a much better chance at survival under climate change and rising fascism.

Click to shrink...

Even though your intentions are good, I question if it's ever going to happen (or on a large scale and as such won't make much of a difference). In most cases, large scale farms are actually really effective at getting as much food to as many people as possible per piece of land and that is better for the environment than a (less professional or smaller scale) community.

Of course it helps if stuff is locally grown, but you already have the opportunity now to buy only or mostly locally grown or seasonal products in stores. The problem is that some food (meat) is much more resource intensive to produce, even if those companies are super efficient.

For the enviroment I think it would be best if we all buy local / seasonal products, produced in the most efficient way and cut meat out completely or just eat it now and then at a restaurant or something.

 

[ZackieChan]

I already don't drive a car. Checkmate.

 

[Untzillatx]

I think I eat beef or lamb less than 10 times per year, and when I do it is usually in restaurants, as I never buy it to prepare myself. I've also reduced the amount of pork (which is tough living in Spain). So now I mostly eat turkey and fish. I expect to cut turkey eventually too, but right now I cannot, it is too convenient protein wise and I haven't found any alternatives.

 

[ersatz]

Exactly. Abstain from meat if you want, or don't drive a car, or don't own a dog; but remember that those choices are about you and your ethics, not about making a real difference. It's great, but it's the equivalent of spitting at a housefire: no matter how many people band together and do it, it will never be enough. Legislative change is the hose full of water.

Click to shrink...

Politics is downstream of culture, not always, but very often. We began to see legislative changes about climate change when people first became concerned about it, it is fundamental that they be more concerned. This can be done by making them accept lifestyle changes.

 

[ersatz]

Dairy can be alleviated and you don't necesarilly have to kill the animal for meat. I'm okay with dairy as it is a fixable mess.

Click to shrink...

How do you do that? Make sure cows don't carry males?

 

[samoyed]

How do you do that? Make sure cows don't carry males?

Click to shrink...

This is not actually significantly difficult. Cull males, abort them in the embryo, genetic engineering etc.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Been a vegetarian for 17 years so half my life now. Also don't own a car and use public transport instead.

What really bothers me about this whole issue is how fucking smug and arrogant some meat eaters are about their defiance of this option. Some people always complain about preachy vegans yet for everyone of those I see, I see 10 meat eaters proclaiming their love of bacon or stakes and how they will never stop eating meat.

 

[ersatz]

One of the worst things about the dairy industry is separating the young from the mother, the suffering caused by that is considerable according to the experts because the bond is so strong.

Also to answer the claim that chickens are "less sophisticated", that's not the issue with inflicting suffering. Unless you believe that they are less conscious and that your judgment of moral value is based on the level of consciousness of minds, but then it's against the scientific consensus in neuroscience.