41–50 of 577 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make much higher welfare standards for farm animals a requirement - making meat much more expensive, reducing consumption. Sounds like a win win to me.
And if you don't want to wait for the government to require this you can already start today. Buy only locally farmed organic meat. Don't go to fast food places or restaurants that don't specifically declare that their meat is organic and local.
I'm doubtful that much change can come from personal choices made by consumers. It seems to me that it would require tremendous energy and commitment from a very large number of people to significantly reduce the global demand. It seems to me that it's much more effective to raise the price or to reduce the supply (something like quotas or cap-and-trade). Can anyone point me to examples where my thinking is wrong, wh…
Why tremendous energy? Cutting individual consumption by eg 30% doesn't look so difficult to me.
I'm doubtful that much change can come from personal choices made by consumers. It seems to me that it would require tremendous energy and commitment from a very large number of people to significantly reduce the global demand. It seems to me that it's much more effective to raise the price or to reduce the supply (something like quotas or cap-and-trade). Can anyone point me to examples where my thinking is wrong, wh…
The UN doesn't have the guts to target the task issue: too many humans. And recommend the only solution: one child per couple until we get down to about half the current population.
This would ignore the fact that almost all emissions are caused by the richest 10%. Reducing this population would be more effective.
2. The idea to reduce the population based on some metric is a dangerous road to go down on.
3. By definition there will always be a richest 10% regardless of how many humans you get rid of.
I don't think people will stop consuming meat if you ask them nicely. You have to make decisions that will hurt the meat industry and make it infeasible. This would likely best be achieved through slowly dropping tax incentives, and transferring them over to alternatives so that people have something equally economical to today's meat.
Make much higher welfare standards for farm animals a requirement - making meat much more expensive, reducing consumption. Sounds like a win win to me.
How about we don't change the diet but change where the food comes from? When talking about meat and damage to the environment, the only relevant figures are the ones associated with animal feed (e.g. water consumption per kg of meat). Pastured animals, by definition, don't eat feed coming from the monoculture industrial agriculture that is depleting the soil and consuming all those resources, and which is also used…
Cows fart.
How about we put a ban on UN officials’ private jets first?
The UN doesn't have the guts to target the task issue: too many humans. And recommend the only solution: one child per couple until we get down to about half the current population.
Didn't work in China. It actually causes a massive "aging population" crisis, some serious gender imbalances, and some weird economic effects throughout the stack. I mean, if you must be a film and TV dystopian bad guy, Thanos' idea doesn't work .
I'm doubtful that much change can come from personal choices made by consumers. It seems to me that it would require tremendous energy and commitment from a very large number of people to significantly reduce the global demand. It seems to me that it's much more effective to raise the price or to reduce the supply (something like quotas or cap-and-trade). Can anyone point me to examples where my thinking is wrong, wh…
It seems to me that for those considerations, bringing new perspectives to consumers to try and influence their choices at the store is one of the only practical options for now.
I simply cannot believe that food is affecting environment more than factories, vehicles and rubbish.
