Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.

https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption

Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-beef-industry-fueling-amazon-rainforest-destruction-deforestation/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-06-02/almost-a-billion-trees-felled-to-feed-appetite-for-brazilian-beef

If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌

Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    27 days ago

    Veganism is good, necessary even, but more than voting we need to actually overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism. Profit will destroy the planet unless we take control of the reigns from capital.

  • skisnow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    perfect is the enemy of good.

    I wish vegans and vegetarians would be a bit more willing to promote this viewpoint. It’s insane how many otherwise normal people will refuse a single meat-free meal for no reason other than identity politics.

  • piyuv@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    How much less red meat to offset all the private jet that flew to Venice for bezos’ wedding?

  • LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    People will look at an image like this, read that 80% of deforestation in the Amazon happens for cattle, and go “I’m powerless, Exxon is bad” and continue to not only eat meat 5x a day but also actively try to convince other people that reducing their meat consumption is silly and they might as well keep eating it as much as they want because grocery stores will stock it anyway and Elon Musk rides a jet.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      i regard all antinatalism as ecofascism. i’m not asking you to change my mind, i’m letting you know you might be participating in a eugenics campaign.

      • BussyCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        28 days ago

        How is it eugenics if it has nothing to do with a parent’s genetic make up? Like if they said “meat eaters shouldn’t have kids” you could try and make an argument for eugenics but for nobody to have a kid or for everyone equally to have less children how is that eugenics?

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          28 days ago

          you are saying this in english, to a (self-)selected demographic subset of english speakers. you are encouraging a particular set of people not to have children. that’s eugenics. unless you can find a way to convey this message to everyone, at once, in an identical message given cultural and other contexts, you will be biasing the message to be more effective among some segment of the populous.

  • renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    Here’s the perspective that helped me the most with this:

    You don’t have to quit meat (sorry for the pun) cold turkey.

    Even cutting your meat consumption by half can have a significant impact. Start by ordering a vegetarian option instead of meat every once in a while. Experiment and find veggie alternatives you actually like, there are tons of options now. I heard someone refer to this as “microdosing veganism”, and it can really help make the change less exhausting.

    Over time, you might even notice your tastes start to shift and vegan options become actually enjoyable instead of a “sacrifice”.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      cutting your meat consumption by half can have a significant impact.

      i doubt it. many people have done that, and meat production grows year-over-year every year.

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      26 days ago

      If you only understood the damage you were doing.

      Rather, I feel you fully understand the damage you are doing and are probably doing it deliberately

    • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      So I wanted to have 9 kids but ended up finishing out at 3. So technically a savings of 6 kids! I’m helping the environment!

      Being pedantic a nebulous “having one fewer kid” means nothing unless there’s a benchmark. I think they mean “having one fewer kid as a country average” so if the average Canadian has 1.26 children per women we want to see it .26 per women.

      On an individual level I can’t unalive a child.

    • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      The methodology here is kinda bs IMO.

      They’re adding up the emissions of the descendants and dividing that by a parents life expectancy.

      However, if a society achieves net 0, then surely the emissions of every person there in are 0, so it’s disingenuous to count them at today’s rates.

      Its an attempt to illustrate the environmental cost of over-population, but it needs to be considered within the context of that methodology.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        28 days ago

        OK, if society achieves net zero, you can have as many children as you like.

        But given that it’s been going up since the industrial revolution, and it’s still going up, it seems rather fanciful to suggest that it’s within our grasp.

        A number of countries have reduced emissions massively, but realistically that mostly means “we’ve moved all our emissions to China”. I could buy green energy from my supplier, but for me that was still coming from a big coal power station a few miles up the road until last year when they finally closed it.

        And frankly, if corporations can count the carbon a tree will capture over 30 years and somehow “offset” that against a dirty great factory when they hurl a few pennies at a third world farmer, then we can count the carbon our descendents will emit over that time as well.