Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet

Post by _Microft » Fri, Aug 09, 2019, 10:46 AM UTC

ensiferum wrote: post #80

The real culprit is the uncontrolled population growth but nobody wants to talk about that. Ok, let's assume that people do indeed eat too much meat and that we halve our current consumption. Population grows until it has doubled and the meat consumption is then back to the same level as to what it is now. Eventually we can all be eating grass and rocks and there'd still be too much demand on nature crated by the exi…

Post by andrenth » Fri, Aug 09, 2019, 10:50 AM UTC

est31 wrote: post #120

mklarmann wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our studies have shown, that about 10% are first movers (willing to give up benefits, to become climate friendly eaters) and 80% will go with the default when it is acceptable. The last 10% would still need to be coerced actively by some kind of restriction.

10% is a lot. It's enough to swing an election. And no idea what the 80% would think. Also, I'm interested in global solutions, not ones that are effective in one country only. Globally, there are varying degrees of support for fighting climate change. Especially third world countries want growth and say it's the responsibility of developed economies to fight it because we have polluted so much historically. The goal…

Post by aaron695 » Fri, Aug 09, 2019, 11:00 AM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #13

Nyandalized wrote: post #2

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.

There is no need to go from one extreme to the other. This is about eating "less" meat. People do not traditionally eat that much meat because meat used to be expensive and its supply limited. This is still the case in poor countries. In developed countries, people started to eat more and more meat as they got richer because we naturally like meat and because of clever marketing. We now eat too much meat, and also co…

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Aug 09, 2019, 11:12 AM UTC

maxencecornet wrote: post #67

robin_reala wrote: post #32

It’s also worth pointing out that even if you don’t want to reduce the amount of meat you eat, changing the type of meat can have big effects. For example (and ignoring transport to the consumer), lamb produces about 35 kg CO₂ per kg of meat, beef 25kg CO₂ / kg, pork and farmed salmon 8kg CO₂ / kg and chicken 4kg CO₂ / kg.

This If you really want to have an impact while still eating meat, just stop eating beef/lamb altogether The amount of food and water needed to produce 1kg of beef meat is just insane Eat poultry or fish instead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio >Cattle is the worst at something like 15:1. Aquaculture, specifically tilapia and catfish, is good at under 2:1

Post by C1sc0cat » Fri, Aug 09, 2019, 11:22 AM UTC

Nyandalized wrote: post #72

CommieDetector wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gives you the right to control what people eat?

I believe the government already has the right and power to control what people eat. People form the government, and people (ideally) choose the people to hold that power. In part I, too have the right to control what people eat through voting.