I think most people willing to change their diet for the sake of the environment already are well aware of the consequences of meat eating. In my opinion it would be more beneficial to focus campaigns on the problem of food waste which I am sure more people would be willing to give up.
Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
141–150 of 577 posts
Re: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Great, that means we can vote to require meat at every meal. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad, we have the right to control what you eat.
You cannot force people to eat something.
Re: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
#143I already do my part for the environment by not having kids. That's a much bigger impact than trying to reduce the amount of meat I eat. So I'll eat whatever I like, thank you.
Why not both?
Re: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? The emissions of a few individuals can be far higher than sustainable and it can still give a net-positive effect when their influence on society is great enough.
If their higher emissions aren't at least indirectly necessary for their high influence on society, then while it may be sustainable and net-positive, it isn't necessary justifiable because better options exist. People with a "high influence on society," however that's measured, can't just do whatever they want because their existence is still net-positive.
The emissions were of course work related in that argument.
Think Mrs. Merkel going to a climate summit vs. someone going to the same place to take a selfie for their followers.
Re: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
What gives you the right to control what people eat?
If it damages the world or society, then why not? Would you say that I have the right to eat pets? Humans? Animals (or plants) that are on the brink of extinction? There are plenty of valid reasons to restrict what people are allowed to eat.
By pets what do you mean? Is it ethical for me to have a cat, when cats are obligate carnivores that not only have to eat meat but also independently kill billions of birds a year? Is it not okay for me to eat a chicken but it's perfectly ok to own a python or boa and feed it live mice?
Cows are not killing the planet. They are one of the few things you can raise that doesn't require pesticides or chemical fertilizers. They and other ruminants are important parts of grassland ecosystems.
The megafauna that existed on planet Earth just 200, 500, and 12,000 years ago were far more numerous than the number of livestock cows today.
This reductionist mindset about the environment that doesn't even attempt to quantify trade offs or factor for the important role livestock plays in crop production is beyond tiresome.
We also happen to need meat for healthy brain function. We need lots of Omega-3 fatty acids the kind that animal foods only provide and plants are not as healthy as they're made out to be. They have tons of oxalates, phytic acids, and inflammatory agents that harm human health in large doses. Not to mention the absurd amount of carbs we already consume from plant based foods.
Re: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
#146There's a good case to be made for humans being primarily meat eaters for much of our history and only eating plants as an alternative to starving - we certainly haven't had time to evolve to eat a vegetarian diet. Agriculture has only been around for a small fraction of our history and the skeletal record clearly shows how disasterous it was for our health. The current 'plant based' fad diet recommendations are back…
I challenge your opinion: I wouldn’t call the world consensus of the IPCC poor science. It is actually the opposite: the best science we have available. The report goes into depth about the health benefits these diets have also.
The IPCC is now the authority on human nutrition?
Re: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except this kind of reasoning accelerates the downfall. Very short sighted.
Well, I look at climate change heroes like Al Gore, jetting around the world and spending his resources graciously. If he can do it, why not me? EDIT: also note that he has 3 rich kids. Is this more eco friendly than eating meat?
Don't get me wrong but I assume your influence is negligible compared to Al Gore's. His work or actions might cause more emissions directly than the average person's but because of his reach and mission, it will be offset at other places (e.g. because three people think twice if they really want to visit their unpopular in-laws over Christmas)
Re: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why tremendous energy? Cutting individual consumption by eg 30% doesn't look so difficult to me.
You would need to get a large part of the global population to do it though, say 50%. And the prices for meat would go down, so you would need to convince the other half of the population not to increase their consumption.
Meat is disproportionately consumed in western countries, so, even a change only in those countries would have a big impact. Eg, China consumes half the meat per person of the US, and India just 5%.
Re: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, which animals are more efficient? Do you have a source on that? There are, as far as I know, regions where the soil is only capable of growing pasture, hard to plant trees in.
for the first two questions refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio > There are, as far as I know, regions where the soil is only capable of growing pasture, hard to plant trees in. I assume that those areas would not be sufficient to cover current meat and dairy demands. If they were there wouldn't be any deforestation or soy fields for animal feed. And non-grazed grasslands is still going to re…
More than 90% of a beef cow's body weight comes from pasture land grass and hay.
When's the last time the Midwestern plains area of the United States was forest? Before the beef industry, 50-100 million bison roamed the plains. It turns out that ruminants like bison and cows are essential components of a grassland ecosystem.
Re: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it damages the world or society, then why not? Would you say that I have the right to eat pets? Humans? Animals (or plants) that are on the brink of extinction? There are plenty of valid reasons to restrict what people are allowed to eat.
By pets what do you mean? Is it ethical for me to have a cat, when cats are obligate carnivores that not only have to eat meat but also independently kill billions of birds a year? Is it not okay for me to eat a chicken but it's perfectly ok to own a python or boa and feed it live mice? Cows are not killing the planet. They are one of the few things you can raise that doesn't require pesticides or chemical fertilizer…
> This reductionist mindset about the environment that doesn't even attempt to quantify trade offs or factor for the important role livestock plays in crop production is beyond tiresome.
I'm not the one who wrote the UN report on climate change that recommends reducing meat consumption. Maybe take it up with the UN instead.
> Not to mention the absurd amount of carbs we already consume from plant based foods.
Speak for yourself. I eat a plant-heavy low-carb diet (I do eat fish, eggs and meat too).
But... you're not replying to what I was saying and that is that there are perfectly valid reasons to restrict what people are allowed to eat. I didn't say anything about not eating cows or whatever, you took my comment out of context, which was simply "There are plenty of valid reasons to restrict what people are allowed to eat." The first paragraph was simply giving examples of reasons that various people might have to do so.