271–280 of 577 posts
If everyone stopped traveling for fun, that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions even more. You’re not going to guilt people into changing their behavior. A carbon tax fixes this.
If everyone stopped traveling for fun the worldwide tourism economy would collapse. There are whole countries that rely on tourism to make it through.
produce less meat Eating less meat just means more waste. We need to stop talking about climate change as a problem individuals can solve with ecological lifestyle choices. We need international economic planning and the seizure of carbon extracting industry.
And that makes sense to me. It's not as if we're killing 3 billion animals per day just because we can, we're doing it because there's such a huge demand for it.
I mean how can we can really pinpoint the political issue here? It seems crony capitalism is at the root of inequality and global warming, yet rent seeks are still being left alone. It seems so difficult to have something in between.
Today we're giving crumbs to the poor in exchange of co2 emissions. We can't do anything right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what was the life expectancy? what was the standard of living? trying to call back to 1930s belarus as an example to live from is crazy. It doesn't even logically follow that we should avoid meat because poor farmers in belarus didn't each much. Where's the logical argument?
Is this just being down voted because of tone? The premise seems valid: just because you can "survive" off of a low-to-no protein diet doesn't mean it should be espoused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My grandmother told me that before the second world war for a typical peasant family in Belarus the meat meant a single chicken 2-4 times in a month for the whole family. Only on big celebrations few times in a year people could afford to slaughter a pig or a caw. Even eggs were considered expensive. Milk was more available as most families had a cow. The real staple food was potato and bread. In cities meat was more…
Its interesting to hear anecdotal stories like these because they contradict the conventional wisdom nowadays that says you have to eat meat as protein every day - clearly that wasn't the case in prior centuries.
produce less meat Eating less meat just means more waste. We need to stop talking about climate change as a problem individuals can solve with ecological lifestyle choices. We need international economic planning and the seizure of carbon extracting industry.
If grocery stores can't sell a certain amount in a couple days, and if this trend continues, they will reevaluate and buy less
produce less meat Eating less meat just means more waste. We need to stop talking about climate change as a problem individuals can solve with ecological lifestyle choices. We need international economic planning and the seizure of carbon extracting industry.
It sounds like what you mean is that you want some government or government like entity to take down big beef/pork/chicken.
What the actual version of that would be is some government-esque entity taking over a bunch of farms and murdering their cows/pigs/chickens and forcibly unemploying large groups of people.
Alternatively that might mean some government-esque entity invading a bunch of foreign farms owned by small Central and Southern American ranchers who aren't exactly rolling in cash with their occupation despite releasing a lot of carbon into the atmosphere.
Let's maybe not call for large government/government-esque orgs to go around seizing anything. That sounds very drastic and bad for a lot of mostly innocent people who do a lot of hard work to raise cows for not very much pay.
produce less meat Eating less meat just means more waste. We need to stop talking about climate change as a problem individuals can solve with ecological lifestyle choices. We need international economic planning and the seizure of carbon extracting industry.
The point at which we ask people to do the right thing is long gone. We need swift, definitive action that takes the hammer to the nail and closes those gaps for good. The only way I am aware of that happening is regulation. Yet, we have massive corruption and money dictating favorable outcomes so I don't know how anything will change. We need someone with brains and balls to say no to a political career and just do what's right no matter the personal consequences. This person would need to be extremely intelligent, eloquent and convincing enough to get other world leaders to get on board and implement a policy that EVERYONE has to abide by. This needs to happen practically over night. All seemingly impossible feats, but this is what we are up against now.
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.
What gives you the right to control what people eat?