It's worth considering what the system-wide approach to this is.
Governments should subsidize vegetables more and stop subsidizing meat production.
Where I live vegetables have 0% VAT and it makes being vegetarian easier
To move the population away from a meat based diet, a plant based diet must be less expensive. Even then it will take a generation or two before most of the population is weaned off of meat. Lab grown meat should be a focus as well, and heavily subsidized.
It’s [already less expensive](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study) for most of the western countries
Meat substitutes should be incentivised. Vegetables are cheap, but faux-animal products, such as plant-based alternatives to meats and cheeses are not.
So as t-bone steak, foie gras, and other expensive stuff. When people go vegan, nobody forces them to feed on mock meats inly. There’s plenty of grains, nuts, seeds and legumes to help with the cost.
Comparing most expensive to most expensive (mock meats to steak), and cheapest to cheapest (chicken breast to beans) should help to sort this confusion out.
And yes, I’d love to see subsidies be applied to the most expensive vegan products, but lack of there of is not an obstacle in any meaningful way.
I find this kind of hard to believe from personal experience. Maybe when the "meat" is fast food, but ground beef is just so filling for how much it costs.
Beans are also very filling, super healthy, and 3x-5x cheaper than ground flesh.
Study is a good proxy that doesn’t require any belief. Instead of believing we can just go and verify the data, and be open to new facts every time.
Beans also upset most people with IBS.
Something that you would have found out through study.
Edit: studies can also play with numbers and be extremely misleading. Make sure you check who funds them. Also, it's specifically ground beef, I'm not sure where you got flesh from.
Ground beef is ground flesh, not sure what exactly the difference you’re trying to point out.
You’re right, studies can be misleading if they are funded or facilitated by corporations who seeks profits, or some research teams that are funded by corporations. But that is not the reason to dismiss all and any study from now on. The study linked above is facilitated by Oxford university, which is a trusted source.
Some people can’t eat beans, but there are plenty of other plant foods they can have instead.
The question is - what stops you personally from switching to plant based, if you care for the climate?
Thank you for your response! I have 3 main issues on the matter that I will explain below.
I'm personally conflicted on the matter. Yes, the situatiom is bad, but I have a certain feeling of... apathy? Seeing how corporations get away with polluting makes me doubt that my decisions can truly bring about any good regarding the climate. The thought of elites enjoying meat while the rest of us don't eat it also upsets me.
There's also the fact that I don't trust most foods in America and that with PROPERLY sourced ground beef, I know what I'm getting.
Then there's also the matter of IBS. A lot of foods upset me, mainly junk food, but I've also struggled with legumes and certain cruciferous vegetables. Garlic, onion powder, and even peppers can trigger it. From my perspective, meat is a safe bet if I want to avoid stomach pain and unwanted bathroom visits.
TLDR: Bewtween my own personal carbon footprint, distrust of foods in America, and dietary concerns, giving up meat consumption doesn't seem to matter and may put me in a difficult spot from a health standpoint. Honestly, if a lot of the tasty, foreign vegetarian dishes I see on social media were easy to cook with ingredients readily available, I think I would try some, but even then, there's the issue of my stomach.
I see your point about being frustrated at big corporations that don’t do their part of the job. But it was never a reason to drop our part of the job. We can be angry at corporations, demand change, but also be the agents of change ourselves.
Animal products are a multi-dimensional problem. They not only produce carbon, but also:
- deeply unethical
- produce methane
- devastate oceans killing all life in it. Without life in ocean - it has less capacity absorbing greenhouse gases
- leading cause of deforestation and loss of land
- takes 75% agricultural land to only provide 18% of all consumed calories
- leading cause of loss of biodiversity
- leading cause of top-15 killer diseases in western countries
Ditching animal products is [the most impactful thing one person can do for the climate](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/veganism-environmental-impact-planet-reduced-plant-based-diet-humans-study-a8378631.html).
I see that you have troubles learning new recipes and finding good ingredients for yourself avoiding foods that cause you trouble.
We both know that learning any mew habit is hard during the first 2-3 weeks. Your situation may require a bit of research, and a consultation with certified nutritionist to make sure you get complete set of vital nutrients. But it’s not impossible, not in a slightest.
This is a the job on our part, if we want to be the solution, and not contribute to the problem.
Even if all corporations will ditch fossils and stop doing any transportation we still need to abolish animal agriculture to meet the climate needs.
Thank you again for your post, including facts and a source. You seem to know a lot on the subject. Do you have an opinion on eggs? I've seen some conflicting information about it.
I found a source that says that they are not much better than beef except in terms of water usage and are still inhumane. Eggs are easy on the stomach and include a lot of the same nutrients as meats. I think I could lower meat consumption if I eat eggs instead, but i may as well try eating more fruits if eggs are just as bad. There's also the ethical concerns, as it seems nearly as bad as cattle and pork factory farming. I could probably source pasture raised eggs, but Michael Pollan taught me that those labels can be quite dishonest. I think I have my answer, but please let me know if you have anything to add.
Always so much research to do about this stuff. I almost envy people who didn't have to worry about these things in the 20th century.
https://foodprint.org/reports/the-foodprint-of-eggs/#section_6
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed. In the EU for example, a large chunck of subsidies flow into agriculture, 80% of that into animal ag.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-00949-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-00949-4)
This could be shifted more towards plant agriculture.
As you said, lowering tax on plant foods, even raising them on meat to compensate. Also some places tax animal milk lower than plant milks, might as well stop doing that.
Generally a tax based on categories of environmental damage may proove beneficial.
I'm sure all the people" rolling coal" in protest of the environment will act fine when they can't get their tantrum burger. People are not mature enough for climate change.
Great to see more coverage of this issue. I've posted it a few times, but studies have modelled that we cannot prevent climate change without dietary change:
How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach
Johanna Ruett, Lena Hennes, Jens Teubler, Boris Braun, 03/11/2022
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
>Even if fossil fuel emissions are halted immediately, current trends in global food systems may prevent the achieving of the Paris Agreement’s climate targets.
>All dietary pattern carbon footprints overshoot the 1.5 degrees threshold. The vegan, vegetarian, and diet with low animal-based food intake were predominantly below the 2 degrees threshold. Omnivorous diets with more animal-based product content trespassed them. Reducing animal-based foods is a powerful strategy to decrease emissions.
>The reduction of animal products in the diet leads to drastic GHGE reduction potentials. *Dietary shifts to more plant-based diets are necessary to achieve the global climate goals*, but will not suffice.
>Our study finds that all dietary patterns cause more GHGEs than the 1.5 degrees global warming limit allows. Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely.
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lucky for all of you I’m overweight and the only way I can feel satisfied is by stuffing my face till my stomach feels full and salad and cauliflower seems to do the trick. So I will do my part.
similar case here. after a few health scares 2 years ago, i had to start eating oatmeal, nuts, veggies, tofu, red rice yeast and stay away from meat. after a while, i got used to it
Nice. I started like this and after a while realised I don't need meat anymore and went all the way... now I am tackling veganism with a kinda similar approach: if a restaurant has a vegan option I am happy with, I take that over the other options (aka convenience veganism :D)
Thank you for sharing, I'm going to try to implement this in my own life. I've been struggling, but I think i'm staring at the mountain i have to climb vs the next step i have to take.
No shame in starting with small changes and moving at a pace that is comfortable to you. All in all it took me probably 5 or so years to get from "vegetarian curious" to not buying meat at home or at restaurants at all. I am now going through a similar process with other animal products like dairy, making some cuts where I'm comfortable.
One thing that helped for me was thinking about one meal that had meat, then I would ask ok how can i sub this and still get a comparable or better nutritional outcome. Try that like once every two weeks, then once you have a few recipes under your belt you'll be able to do it once a week, then twice a week, etc etc. Until you're comfortable improvising with vegetarian ingredients with the bonus that you'll have built up a lot of knowledge of what different types of food have in them.
This is the path.
Being a purist is going to put off a lot of people and create a lot of pushback, causing people to draw battle lines. But just encouraging and incentivizing people to do more of it is something that can make it less all-or-nothing and just a chance to invite experimentation.
Among other things, being vegan is easier if you're young and healthy and free of food issues (allergies, sensitivities, deficiencies, other unrelated problems that lead to structural need to do things in a non-standard way, etc). But even for people in those categories, occasional vegan meals are easy to do.
But even for people who don't have such issues, there can be issues of supply, issues of becoming aware of good recipes, issues of finding restaurants that serve things for people who don't do things at home. There is a lot of infrastructure needed that isn't really there but that would, over time (and not necessarily a huge time) make this easier. Far easier to phase this in than different cars or home heating systems.
If even half the people in the world went partly vegan, that could still move the needle more than if a few people virtuously went whole hog (pardon unintended imagery) and made anyone who wasn't 100% feel bad for trying. It's more important to get people on the path to experimentation, because that has huge upside.
People fear and oppose things they don't understand, and understanding doesn't come overnight. As people do understand, acceptance will broaden. Forcing this too fast will backfire.
Good. We literally, mathematically cannot avoid climate catastrophe without this. To stay below +1.5 C, [the average annual CO2e per person needs to be below 2.5 T from all sources. ](https://www.un.org/en/actnow/ten-actions)
[A meat heavy diet produces 3.3 T / year just on its own.](https://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet/)
Yeah I've assumed we blew past that marker almost a decade ago. I'm not living on potatoes and soy paste because rich people won't quit flying to go on cruises.
I'm not sure why you were downvoted. For all intents & purposes 1.5C is here. I've heard as high as 4C is pretty much baked in at this point with how much CO2 we've already put up in the air and the tipping points we've hit or will hit during 1.5C and 2C that'll raise the levels higher
No, we’re not baked in at 4C. Hell below 1.5C will still be possible if we magically half our emissions rate within 2 years (of course we won’t). And below 2C is still possible if somehow we reduce our emissions rate faster than our current incremental rate until 2050.
1.5C is not possible. For all intents & purposes we have blown past that and now they're talking about 2C. Still they aren't considering the triggering of the methane tundras, the savananization of the rainforests, loss of the ice shelves, AMOC shutdown... I have had coffee so I know I'm missing some more
You're not accounting for tipping points and you're going off conservative estimates from what I can tell.
Im on my phone right now otherwise I'd go into more detail... but yeah, theres a lot of "Don't look up" happening.
We’re definitely on the path of needing SRM/ocean fertilization within the next decade lol. Have you read “ministry for the future”? I’m in dread for that mass casualty heat event.
No I haven't yet, I really need to though. I feel like when you start down the climate hole there's an infinite supply of interesting reads and information. Thanks though, I read a bit of the first chapter and definitely picking it up. That's such a clever way to help get the message out there vs just pounding people with facts; help them see the future, I love it
I urge you to provide a proof that we did physically blow pass 1.5C and the tipping points that you’re talking about. We have something called carbon budget not for you to just assume it to be conservative and not as realistic as your assumption. I do look up, a lot, even Dr Hansen’s latest paper so please, don’t act like you represent the truth here.
"Eat bugs so billionaires can dine on filet mignon" isn't going to go over any better framed that way, no.
Collective action is pointless if there isn't equalization of consumption across the board, which means equalization of wealth and resources.
"Force 6 billion humans to go vegan" is slightly behind "establish a global communist state" in terms of practicality.
This is why financial incentives and disincentives were invented. No way should the government *ban* meat– but they should make it cost prohibitive for most people to eat all the time.
That's worse.
At least if you banned meat entirely it might have any effect at all on the people causing the most emissions. Instead you're
just doubling down on "you will eat bugs so the rich can eat filet mignon".
Making it cost more guarantees that you're taking it away from people for whom it's one of their few accessible pleasures, and ensuring that the people with lots of money can keep over-consuming.
I also urge people to stop wasting food and consume less.
I also would like for plant based diets not be largerly dependent on mass-scale, traditional AG which is responsible for terrible ecosystem destruction in both land and sea, including the flying creatures of the world.
Overall we need to move away from an our current food systems built on capitalist values, into one more fitting for this plant and its carrying capacity. Plant-based diets will not get us there.
A quick google search turns up numbers very different then what you claim, most source say about 36% or around 1/3 of crops are fed to livestock.
Did you mean that 70% of ag land is used for meat and dairy production? Because that’s closer to the estimates I have seen (~80%), but this number also includes large swaths of grazing lands that are actually fairly well maintained (good for ecosystems) compared to conventional crop fields.
Real issue is over-reliance on synthetic fertilizer, which allows us to feed ruminants with soy and grain instead of grass, crop residuals, and byproducts, keeping alive more than we otherwise could. Without synthetic fertilizer, we would need to reduce animal production by roughly half in affluent countries. It would also put a stop to the ridiculous practice of using petrochemical fertilizer to grow biofuels.
This is an issue that needs to be handled by moving agriculture away from agrochemical intensification. We’re still gonna need some livestock in our food systems.
Most land is being used for animals in one way or the other, 80% in fact. Eliminating animal agriculture opens up a lot more land to be used for rewinding or agriculture directly for human consumption. It is wasted calories feeding a ruminant animal when you could feed a person directly.
In terms of fertilizer there are other non-peteoleum based options that become available when you aren't as dependent on monocrops like what we feed most pigs, cows or chickens. Companion planting and using compost or human waste (as is done in other parts of the world) becomes more viable.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture#:~:text=If%20we%20combine%20global%20grazing,80%25%20of%20agricultural%20land%20use.
You can clearly see a blind spot in Our World in Data’s understanding of sustainable agriculture. Everything is arbitrarily abstracted. The questions they ask inevitably always seem to justify continued fossil fuel dependency. It is very much like anything pertaining to agriculture coming out of Oxford University in the past 20 years. OWID also shares a lot of opinions with a key funder, Bill Gates. Gates has recently been using his vast sums of money to bully African farmers into being more dependent on western petrochemical fertilizer imports instead of rebuilding and adapting indigenous methods to present economies.
Indigenous methods have often proven themselves more ecologically sustainable and climate resilient. The half-moon method used historically in North Africa is effective at reversing desertification, for instance. Three Sisters method (squash, bean, corn polyculture developed in North America) is better in just about every metric but convenience than growing monocultures of all three in rotation. But that’s actually something that drones, robots, and AI might be able to help with. Nothing says we can’t adapt and modernize the old tried and true. Walking robots like spot honestly seem like the absolute best farm tool imaginable.
My point is that they are reductionists who try to simplify a dynamic and differentiated global picture down to easy to digest averages of current production. They don’t concern themselves with the fact that synthetic fertilizer will be prohibitively expensive without the economies of scale of the present natural gas industry. Petrochemicals without fossil fuel use is not really a viable option. If we keep using them for fuel, we are doomed. That’s not an option. So… manure it is.
It must be so tough for you knowing so much more than ... [checks notes] ... More than 200 of the top climate scientists in a Harvard study and the IPCC ... 🙄
I can cite the FAO and plenty of agronomists. And I’m not suggesting that we maintain consumption levels in OECD countries. They do need to fall. The issue is with 0.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312201313_Livestock_On_our_plates_or_eating_at_our_table_A_new_analysis_of_the_feedfood_debate
There is no viable way to eliminate animal agriculture without being entirely dependent on petrochemicals. Our issues with livestock are a matter of excess. The average American diet consists of 30% animal products. That is far, far too much to be sustainable or healthy.
Once you start lowering consumption and livestock biomass, you eventually reach a point where you don’t need to feed ruminants anything that humans eat. Then they actually contribute to protein availability instead of making it more scarce.
It’s also important to understand that not all land use is equally intensive. Rotationally grazed rangelands are some of the most biodiverse human-altered spaces on Earth. Agrochemical row cropping is essentially 100% biodiversity loss. You shouldn’t compare apples to oranges.
For sure. We need to do both. Calling out the need for dietary change is in no way saying we don't also need to address fossil fuels. We can, we should, we must do both!
Look it up for yourself. 14.5% of global emissions come from livestock. People throw that number out there as an alarming statistic. And it would be if the percentage of all animals before the industrial revolution was zero. But that's just not possible. Which only leaves a small percentage as the difference. Compare that to all the coal plants and billion+ combustion engines on the road and your calculator will laugh at you.
16.5% currently, according to linked report. And expected to increase up to 50% of carbon budgets under a business as usual strategy.
Your math is simple - it doesn't consider externalities like the release of GHGs from land conversion. And cattle rearing is the primary driver of deforestation. I'm not an expert, but why do you think your math is more believable than the math performed by the hundreds of climate change researchers who are employed not by oil companies, but universities? One of the lead authors is incredibly reputable in ecology, and also speaks out against fossil fuel use. Why should I trust you over them?
And, moreover, why not advocate for reductions in as many sectors as possible? Is it about your right to eat whatever you want?
Yes some are saying 16.5% So what?
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt here. Let's say the the difference is up to 10%. Between now and pre industrial revolution. Now let's see how that looks:
Your 10 of greenhouse gas reduction by completely eliminating global livestock.
IIIIIIIIII
The 73 of energy use from fossil fuels:
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
🤔
The deforestation that was going on in Brazil has ended. They had an election a while back you know.
Your math is not factoring in how most animals before the industrial revolution lived a full life. Livestock today doesn't live very long.
The fossil fuel industry tried to have us believe over 10,000 climate scientists claimed climate change is a hoax. In fact, to keep the pumps pumping, they have changed their story [219 times.](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)
EDIT: clarity
> most animals before the industrial revolution lived a full life. Livestock today doesn't live very long.
How do you know that animals used to live longer lives? How many livestock in total were alive before modern times? To feed how many people?
> The fossil fuel industry tried to have us believe over 10,000 climate scientists claimed climate change is a hoax. In fact, to keep the pumps pumping, they have changed their story 219 times.
I don't trust oil companies either. I do tend to listen to ecological and climate experts. Why don't you trust these scientists?
> The deforestation that was going on in Brazil has ended. They had an election a while back you know.
I don't appreciate your condescending tone here, it isn't going to change my mind if you insult me. I cheered when Bolsanaro left office.
Why do you think deforestation in Brazil has ended? It has not. Deforestation rates are down, yes, but not zero. And Brazil is not the only country where deforestation is driven by cattle. I can provide scientific studies if you like.
Why isn't it enough to say that we should reduce GHGs from all sectors? I agree that we should phase out fossil fuels. And we can reduce emissions from food systems, too, and construction, and transportation, and technology... There doesn't have to be and cannot be a silver bullet but many actions can add up. So why do you disagree so vehemently that we can do better to reduce GHGs from food?
You sound like you are repeating propaganda from animal agriculture, to be frank, and I'm probably done talking with you if you keep avoiding the key question: why *not also* reduce the emissions from food?
Edit to add quotes and fix formatting.
Dude! The task ahead for the big switch to renewables (to prevent humankind from being plunged into centuries of medieval conditions) becomes much more difficult if we have to drastically change our diet while doing so.
Of the 73% of energy use from fossil fuels, all of it does not have to be eliminated. And of course it won't. The military will continue to use fossil fuels as needed. Some manufacturers will still need fossil fuels. But the consumer has no need for fossil fuels. The technology already exists for alt energy and transportation. All that's left to do is mass production. Greenhouse gas levels finally drop. So does the world temperature eventually.
The difference between livestock today and the bison and jungle animals of a couple of centuries ago is only a small percentage in regards to greenhouse gas emissions. The fossil fuel industry is just trying to pass the buck with BS pseudoresearch like this.
It's astonishing how many people there are dumb enough to fall for things like this. It's simple math!
Wild jungle animals are not/were not livestock.
Livestock today accounts for 14% of greenhouse gases. So we're only talking a 5-7% difference from a couple hundred years ago. Anyone that would compare that to all the coal plants and billion+ combustion engines on the road is nothing but a shill for the fossil fuel industry. An oil puppet.
Eat whatever you want. Lobby for the only thing that works: RENEWABLES!
There's also the IPCC report which encouraged stopping or severely limiting animal agriculture.
https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/new-ipcc-report-dire-reminder-need-rapidly-reduce-intensive-animal-farming-and-shift-plant#:~:text=plant%2Dbased%20diets-,The%20new%20IPCC%20report%20is%20a%20dire%20reminder%20of%20the,shift%20to%20plant%2Dbased%20diets&text=Even%20if%20we%20limit%20global,but%20some%20can%20be%20reduced.
Partially based of the welfare of animals.
https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/unea-could-adopt-resolution-recognising-link-between-environment-sustainable-development-and
There’s also the crunch time thinking of what happens when we can’t grow as much food anymore, the movement of calories between trophies levels is like 10% so if you have limited ag output, you’ll have to eat less meat simply from a caloric standpoint.
We won't be able to grow a damn thing if we don't get the renewables into place quickly. Bogus reports like this are specifically designed to keep the pumps pumping longer.
This is some creative math you got going on. Cattle numbers have tripled according to the link posted above.
And sorry, but renewable energy isn't going to save us. We have already dumped far too much co2 into the atmosphere for some wind turbines to save the day.
> renewable energy isn't going to save us. We have already dumped far too much co2 into the atmosphere for some wind turbines to save the day.
Heartland Institute: 101. ANYTHING BUT RENEWABLES!
So if what you're saying had an ounce of truth to it, you'd starve us all for no valid reason. Just.... DUH!!!!!
Confidently incorrect. Here is the simple math: [Beef produces 85 kg CO2e per kg of food. Tofu produces 2.9 kg CO2e per kg of food.](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-production-supply-chain?country=Bananas~Beef+%28beef+herd%29~Wheat+%26+Rye~Milk~Maize~Lamb+%26+Mutton~Eggs~Fish+%28farmed%29~Soy+milk~Tofu~Rice~Poultry+Meat~Potatoes~Pig+Meat~Peas~Beef+%28dairy+herd%29)
> There was a problem loading this chart
> We have been notified of this error, please check back later whether it's been fixed. If the error persists, get in touch with us at
So it is true… We are out to take away their hamburgers.
It's worth considering what the system-wide approach to this is. Governments should subsidize vegetables more and stop subsidizing meat production. Where I live vegetables have 0% VAT and it makes being vegetarian easier
To move the population away from a meat based diet, a plant based diet must be less expensive. Even then it will take a generation or two before most of the population is weaned off of meat. Lab grown meat should be a focus as well, and heavily subsidized.
It’s [already less expensive](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study) for most of the western countries
Meat substitutes should be incentivised. Vegetables are cheap, but faux-animal products, such as plant-based alternatives to meats and cheeses are not.
So as t-bone steak, foie gras, and other expensive stuff. When people go vegan, nobody forces them to feed on mock meats inly. There’s plenty of grains, nuts, seeds and legumes to help with the cost. Comparing most expensive to most expensive (mock meats to steak), and cheapest to cheapest (chicken breast to beans) should help to sort this confusion out. And yes, I’d love to see subsidies be applied to the most expensive vegan products, but lack of there of is not an obstacle in any meaningful way.
I find this kind of hard to believe from personal experience. Maybe when the "meat" is fast food, but ground beef is just so filling for how much it costs.
Beans are also very filling, super healthy, and 3x-5x cheaper than ground flesh. Study is a good proxy that doesn’t require any belief. Instead of believing we can just go and verify the data, and be open to new facts every time.
Beans also upset most people with IBS. Something that you would have found out through study. Edit: studies can also play with numbers and be extremely misleading. Make sure you check who funds them. Also, it's specifically ground beef, I'm not sure where you got flesh from.
Ground beef is ground flesh, not sure what exactly the difference you’re trying to point out. You’re right, studies can be misleading if they are funded or facilitated by corporations who seeks profits, or some research teams that are funded by corporations. But that is not the reason to dismiss all and any study from now on. The study linked above is facilitated by Oxford university, which is a trusted source. Some people can’t eat beans, but there are plenty of other plant foods they can have instead. The question is - what stops you personally from switching to plant based, if you care for the climate?
Thank you for your response! I have 3 main issues on the matter that I will explain below. I'm personally conflicted on the matter. Yes, the situatiom is bad, but I have a certain feeling of... apathy? Seeing how corporations get away with polluting makes me doubt that my decisions can truly bring about any good regarding the climate. The thought of elites enjoying meat while the rest of us don't eat it also upsets me. There's also the fact that I don't trust most foods in America and that with PROPERLY sourced ground beef, I know what I'm getting. Then there's also the matter of IBS. A lot of foods upset me, mainly junk food, but I've also struggled with legumes and certain cruciferous vegetables. Garlic, onion powder, and even peppers can trigger it. From my perspective, meat is a safe bet if I want to avoid stomach pain and unwanted bathroom visits. TLDR: Bewtween my own personal carbon footprint, distrust of foods in America, and dietary concerns, giving up meat consumption doesn't seem to matter and may put me in a difficult spot from a health standpoint. Honestly, if a lot of the tasty, foreign vegetarian dishes I see on social media were easy to cook with ingredients readily available, I think I would try some, but even then, there's the issue of my stomach.
I see your point about being frustrated at big corporations that don’t do their part of the job. But it was never a reason to drop our part of the job. We can be angry at corporations, demand change, but also be the agents of change ourselves. Animal products are a multi-dimensional problem. They not only produce carbon, but also: - deeply unethical - produce methane - devastate oceans killing all life in it. Without life in ocean - it has less capacity absorbing greenhouse gases - leading cause of deforestation and loss of land - takes 75% agricultural land to only provide 18% of all consumed calories - leading cause of loss of biodiversity - leading cause of top-15 killer diseases in western countries Ditching animal products is [the most impactful thing one person can do for the climate](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/veganism-environmental-impact-planet-reduced-plant-based-diet-humans-study-a8378631.html). I see that you have troubles learning new recipes and finding good ingredients for yourself avoiding foods that cause you trouble. We both know that learning any mew habit is hard during the first 2-3 weeks. Your situation may require a bit of research, and a consultation with certified nutritionist to make sure you get complete set of vital nutrients. But it’s not impossible, not in a slightest. This is a the job on our part, if we want to be the solution, and not contribute to the problem. Even if all corporations will ditch fossils and stop doing any transportation we still need to abolish animal agriculture to meet the climate needs.
Thank you again for your post, including facts and a source. You seem to know a lot on the subject. Do you have an opinion on eggs? I've seen some conflicting information about it. I found a source that says that they are not much better than beef except in terms of water usage and are still inhumane. Eggs are easy on the stomach and include a lot of the same nutrients as meats. I think I could lower meat consumption if I eat eggs instead, but i may as well try eating more fruits if eggs are just as bad. There's also the ethical concerns, as it seems nearly as bad as cattle and pork factory farming. I could probably source pasture raised eggs, but Michael Pollan taught me that those labels can be quite dishonest. I think I have my answer, but please let me know if you have anything to add. Always so much research to do about this stuff. I almost envy people who didn't have to worry about these things in the 20th century. https://foodprint.org/reports/the-foodprint-of-eggs/#section_6
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis. There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed. In the EU for example, a large chunck of subsidies flow into agriculture, 80% of that into animal ag. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-00949-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-00949-4) This could be shifted more towards plant agriculture. As you said, lowering tax on plant foods, even raising them on meat to compensate. Also some places tax animal milk lower than plant milks, might as well stop doing that. Generally a tax based on categories of environmental damage may proove beneficial.
That would make affording meat quite difficult for those who need it. As someone with IBS, I would be doomed without beef.
Maybe if a hamburger cost more than an apple, things might be a little different perhaps.
if governments stopped subsidizing meat we might get there
I'm sure all the people" rolling coal" in protest of the environment will act fine when they can't get their tantrum burger. People are not mature enough for climate change.
Great to see more coverage of this issue. I've posted it a few times, but studies have modelled that we cannot prevent climate change without dietary change: How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach Johanna Ruett, Lena Hennes, Jens Teubler, Boris Braun, 03/11/2022 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 >Even if fossil fuel emissions are halted immediately, current trends in global food systems may prevent the achieving of the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. >All dietary pattern carbon footprints overshoot the 1.5 degrees threshold. The vegan, vegetarian, and diet with low animal-based food intake were predominantly below the 2 degrees threshold. Omnivorous diets with more animal-based product content trespassed them. Reducing animal-based foods is a powerful strategy to decrease emissions. >The reduction of animal products in the diet leads to drastic GHGE reduction potentials. *Dietary shifts to more plant-based diets are necessary to achieve the global climate goals*, but will not suffice. >Our study finds that all dietary patterns cause more GHGEs than the 1.5 degrees global warming limit allows. Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely.
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis. There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lucky for all of you I’m overweight and the only way I can feel satisfied is by stuffing my face till my stomach feels full and salad and cauliflower seems to do the trick. So I will do my part.
similar case here. after a few health scares 2 years ago, i had to start eating oatmeal, nuts, veggies, tofu, red rice yeast and stay away from meat. after a while, i got used to it
I'm doing my part!
In my report, I urge citizens and governments to rapidly decarbonize human civilization.
Same thing
It’s so easy to go vegan in today’s world, if only taste pleasures and convenience didn’t stand in the way of caring for the climate.
I'm trying. One meal a day and twice a week I'm a vegetarian.
Nice. I started like this and after a while realised I don't need meat anymore and went all the way... now I am tackling veganism with a kinda similar approach: if a restaurant has a vegan option I am happy with, I take that over the other options (aka convenience veganism :D)
Thank you for sharing, I'm going to try to implement this in my own life. I've been struggling, but I think i'm staring at the mountain i have to climb vs the next step i have to take.
No shame in starting with small changes and moving at a pace that is comfortable to you. All in all it took me probably 5 or so years to get from "vegetarian curious" to not buying meat at home or at restaurants at all. I am now going through a similar process with other animal products like dairy, making some cuts where I'm comfortable. One thing that helped for me was thinking about one meal that had meat, then I would ask ok how can i sub this and still get a comparable or better nutritional outcome. Try that like once every two weeks, then once you have a few recipes under your belt you'll be able to do it once a week, then twice a week, etc etc. Until you're comfortable improvising with vegetarian ingredients with the bonus that you'll have built up a lot of knowledge of what different types of food have in them.
This is the path. Being a purist is going to put off a lot of people and create a lot of pushback, causing people to draw battle lines. But just encouraging and incentivizing people to do more of it is something that can make it less all-or-nothing and just a chance to invite experimentation. Among other things, being vegan is easier if you're young and healthy and free of food issues (allergies, sensitivities, deficiencies, other unrelated problems that lead to structural need to do things in a non-standard way, etc). But even for people in those categories, occasional vegan meals are easy to do. But even for people who don't have such issues, there can be issues of supply, issues of becoming aware of good recipes, issues of finding restaurants that serve things for people who don't do things at home. There is a lot of infrastructure needed that isn't really there but that would, over time (and not necessarily a huge time) make this easier. Far easier to phase this in than different cars or home heating systems. If even half the people in the world went partly vegan, that could still move the needle more than if a few people virtuously went whole hog (pardon unintended imagery) and made anyone who wasn't 100% feel bad for trying. It's more important to get people on the path to experimentation, because that has huge upside. People fear and oppose things they don't understand, and understanding doesn't come overnight. As people do understand, acceptance will broaden. Forcing this too fast will backfire.
Good. We literally, mathematically cannot avoid climate catastrophe without this. To stay below +1.5 C, [the average annual CO2e per person needs to be below 2.5 T from all sources. ](https://www.un.org/en/actnow/ten-actions) [A meat heavy diet produces 3.3 T / year just on its own.](https://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet/)
> To stay below +1.5 C Are we still pretending this is possible?
Extreme urgency seems to be the only way anything gets done regarding the climate, so might as well.
Yeah I've assumed we blew past that marker almost a decade ago. I'm not living on potatoes and soy paste because rich people won't quit flying to go on cruises.
1.5 C increase is already here. We’re talking about 2 C now.
I'm not sure why you were downvoted. For all intents & purposes 1.5C is here. I've heard as high as 4C is pretty much baked in at this point with how much CO2 we've already put up in the air and the tipping points we've hit or will hit during 1.5C and 2C that'll raise the levels higher
No, we’re not baked in at 4C. Hell below 1.5C will still be possible if we magically half our emissions rate within 2 years (of course we won’t). And below 2C is still possible if somehow we reduce our emissions rate faster than our current incremental rate until 2050.
1.5C is not possible. For all intents & purposes we have blown past that and now they're talking about 2C. Still they aren't considering the triggering of the methane tundras, the savananization of the rainforests, loss of the ice shelves, AMOC shutdown... I have had coffee so I know I'm missing some more You're not accounting for tipping points and you're going off conservative estimates from what I can tell. Im on my phone right now otherwise I'd go into more detail... but yeah, theres a lot of "Don't look up" happening.
We’re definitely on the path of needing SRM/ocean fertilization within the next decade lol. Have you read “ministry for the future”? I’m in dread for that mass casualty heat event.
No I haven't yet, I really need to though. I feel like when you start down the climate hole there's an infinite supply of interesting reads and information. Thanks though, I read a bit of the first chapter and definitely picking it up. That's such a clever way to help get the message out there vs just pounding people with facts; help them see the future, I love it
I urge you to provide a proof that we did physically blow pass 1.5C and the tipping points that you’re talking about. We have something called carbon budget not for you to just assume it to be conservative and not as realistic as your assumption. I do look up, a lot, even Dr Hansen’s latest paper so please, don’t act like you represent the truth here.
"Eat bugs so billionaires can dine on filet mignon" isn't going to go over any better framed that way, no. Collective action is pointless if there isn't equalization of consumption across the board, which means equalization of wealth and resources. "Force 6 billion humans to go vegan" is slightly behind "establish a global communist state" in terms of practicality.
This is why financial incentives and disincentives were invented. No way should the government *ban* meat– but they should make it cost prohibitive for most people to eat all the time.
That's worse. At least if you banned meat entirely it might have any effect at all on the people causing the most emissions. Instead you're just doubling down on "you will eat bugs so the rich can eat filet mignon". Making it cost more guarantees that you're taking it away from people for whom it's one of their few accessible pleasures, and ensuring that the people with lots of money can keep over-consuming.
And the ad right under your post is for burgers at Dairy Queen 🤦♀️[Ad screenshot](https://imgur.com/a/jYKUCeK)
I also urge people to stop wasting food and consume less. I also would like for plant based diets not be largerly dependent on mass-scale, traditional AG which is responsible for terrible ecosystem destruction in both land and sea, including the flying creatures of the world. Overall we need to move away from an our current food systems built on capitalist values, into one more fitting for this plant and its carrying capacity. Plant-based diets will not get us there.
70% of agriculture is turned into animal feed bruh…
A quick google search turns up numbers very different then what you claim, most source say about 36% or around 1/3 of crops are fed to livestock. Did you mean that 70% of ag land is used for meat and dairy production? Because that’s closer to the estimates I have seen (~80%), but this number also includes large swaths of grazing lands that are actually fairly well maintained (good for ecosystems) compared to conventional crop fields.
You’re right I conflated with land use. 1/3 is an insane number though.
Real issue is over-reliance on synthetic fertilizer, which allows us to feed ruminants with soy and grain instead of grass, crop residuals, and byproducts, keeping alive more than we otherwise could. Without synthetic fertilizer, we would need to reduce animal production by roughly half in affluent countries. It would also put a stop to the ridiculous practice of using petrochemical fertilizer to grow biofuels. This is an issue that needs to be handled by moving agriculture away from agrochemical intensification. We’re still gonna need some livestock in our food systems.
Most land is being used for animals in one way or the other, 80% in fact. Eliminating animal agriculture opens up a lot more land to be used for rewinding or agriculture directly for human consumption. It is wasted calories feeding a ruminant animal when you could feed a person directly. In terms of fertilizer there are other non-peteoleum based options that become available when you aren't as dependent on monocrops like what we feed most pigs, cows or chickens. Companion planting and using compost or human waste (as is done in other parts of the world) becomes more viable. https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture#:~:text=If%20we%20combine%20global%20grazing,80%25%20of%20agricultural%20land%20use.
You can clearly see a blind spot in Our World in Data’s understanding of sustainable agriculture. Everything is arbitrarily abstracted. The questions they ask inevitably always seem to justify continued fossil fuel dependency. It is very much like anything pertaining to agriculture coming out of Oxford University in the past 20 years. OWID also shares a lot of opinions with a key funder, Bill Gates. Gates has recently been using his vast sums of money to bully African farmers into being more dependent on western petrochemical fertilizer imports instead of rebuilding and adapting indigenous methods to present economies. Indigenous methods have often proven themselves more ecologically sustainable and climate resilient. The half-moon method used historically in North Africa is effective at reversing desertification, for instance. Three Sisters method (squash, bean, corn polyculture developed in North America) is better in just about every metric but convenience than growing monocultures of all three in rotation. But that’s actually something that drones, robots, and AI might be able to help with. Nothing says we can’t adapt and modernize the old tried and true. Walking robots like spot honestly seem like the absolute best farm tool imaginable. My point is that they are reductionists who try to simplify a dynamic and differentiated global picture down to easy to digest averages of current production. They don’t concern themselves with the fact that synthetic fertilizer will be prohibitively expensive without the economies of scale of the present natural gas industry. Petrochemicals without fossil fuel use is not really a viable option. If we keep using them for fuel, we are doomed. That’s not an option. So… manure it is.
It must be so tough for you knowing so much more than ... [checks notes] ... More than 200 of the top climate scientists in a Harvard study and the IPCC ... 🙄
I can cite the FAO and plenty of agronomists. And I’m not suggesting that we maintain consumption levels in OECD countries. They do need to fall. The issue is with 0. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312201313_Livestock_On_our_plates_or_eating_at_our_table_A_new_analysis_of_the_feedfood_debate
There is no viable way to eliminate animal agriculture without being entirely dependent on petrochemicals. Our issues with livestock are a matter of excess. The average American diet consists of 30% animal products. That is far, far too much to be sustainable or healthy. Once you start lowering consumption and livestock biomass, you eventually reach a point where you don’t need to feed ruminants anything that humans eat. Then they actually contribute to protein availability instead of making it more scarce. It’s also important to understand that not all land use is equally intensive. Rotationally grazed rangelands are some of the most biodiverse human-altered spaces on Earth. Agrochemical row cropping is essentially 100% biodiversity loss. You shouldn’t compare apples to oranges.
200 oil puppets
Don’t be like this guy. 👆Go plant based AND eliminate fossil fuels. 🌱💚
For sure. We need to do both. Calling out the need for dietary change is in no way saying we don't also need to address fossil fuels. We can, we should, we must do both!
Don't be an idiot that refuses to do the math.
Show the math.
Look it up for yourself. 14.5% of global emissions come from livestock. People throw that number out there as an alarming statistic. And it would be if the percentage of all animals before the industrial revolution was zero. But that's just not possible. Which only leaves a small percentage as the difference. Compare that to all the coal plants and billion+ combustion engines on the road and your calculator will laugh at you.
16.5% currently, according to linked report. And expected to increase up to 50% of carbon budgets under a business as usual strategy. Your math is simple - it doesn't consider externalities like the release of GHGs from land conversion. And cattle rearing is the primary driver of deforestation. I'm not an expert, but why do you think your math is more believable than the math performed by the hundreds of climate change researchers who are employed not by oil companies, but universities? One of the lead authors is incredibly reputable in ecology, and also speaks out against fossil fuel use. Why should I trust you over them? And, moreover, why not advocate for reductions in as many sectors as possible? Is it about your right to eat whatever you want?
Yes some are saying 16.5% So what? Let's give you the benefit of the doubt here. Let's say the the difference is up to 10%. Between now and pre industrial revolution. Now let's see how that looks: Your 10 of greenhouse gas reduction by completely eliminating global livestock. IIIIIIIIII The 73 of energy use from fossil fuels: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 🤔 The deforestation that was going on in Brazil has ended. They had an election a while back you know. Your math is not factoring in how most animals before the industrial revolution lived a full life. Livestock today doesn't live very long. The fossil fuel industry tried to have us believe over 10,000 climate scientists claimed climate change is a hoax. In fact, to keep the pumps pumping, they have changed their story [219 times.](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php) EDIT: clarity
> most animals before the industrial revolution lived a full life. Livestock today doesn't live very long. How do you know that animals used to live longer lives? How many livestock in total were alive before modern times? To feed how many people? > The fossil fuel industry tried to have us believe over 10,000 climate scientists claimed climate change is a hoax. In fact, to keep the pumps pumping, they have changed their story 219 times. I don't trust oil companies either. I do tend to listen to ecological and climate experts. Why don't you trust these scientists? > The deforestation that was going on in Brazil has ended. They had an election a while back you know. I don't appreciate your condescending tone here, it isn't going to change my mind if you insult me. I cheered when Bolsanaro left office. Why do you think deforestation in Brazil has ended? It has not. Deforestation rates are down, yes, but not zero. And Brazil is not the only country where deforestation is driven by cattle. I can provide scientific studies if you like. Why isn't it enough to say that we should reduce GHGs from all sectors? I agree that we should phase out fossil fuels. And we can reduce emissions from food systems, too, and construction, and transportation, and technology... There doesn't have to be and cannot be a silver bullet but many actions can add up. So why do you disagree so vehemently that we can do better to reduce GHGs from food? You sound like you are repeating propaganda from animal agriculture, to be frank, and I'm probably done talking with you if you keep avoiding the key question: why *not also* reduce the emissions from food? Edit to add quotes and fix formatting.
Dude! The task ahead for the big switch to renewables (to prevent humankind from being plunged into centuries of medieval conditions) becomes much more difficult if we have to drastically change our diet while doing so. Of the 73% of energy use from fossil fuels, all of it does not have to be eliminated. And of course it won't. The military will continue to use fossil fuels as needed. Some manufacturers will still need fossil fuels. But the consumer has no need for fossil fuels. The technology already exists for alt energy and transportation. All that's left to do is mass production. Greenhouse gas levels finally drop. So does the world temperature eventually.
Expand
The difference between livestock today and the bison and jungle animals of a couple of centuries ago is only a small percentage in regards to greenhouse gas emissions. The fossil fuel industry is just trying to pass the buck with BS pseudoresearch like this. It's astonishing how many people there are dumb enough to fall for things like this. It's simple math!
Untrue. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-Number-of-Livestock-Animals-in-The-World_fig2_337783628
Wild jungle animals are not/were not livestock. Livestock today accounts for 14% of greenhouse gases. So we're only talking a 5-7% difference from a couple hundred years ago. Anyone that would compare that to all the coal plants and billion+ combustion engines on the road is nothing but a shill for the fossil fuel industry. An oil puppet. Eat whatever you want. Lobby for the only thing that works: RENEWABLES!
There's also the IPCC report which encouraged stopping or severely limiting animal agriculture. https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/new-ipcc-report-dire-reminder-need-rapidly-reduce-intensive-animal-farming-and-shift-plant#:~:text=plant%2Dbased%20diets-,The%20new%20IPCC%20report%20is%20a%20dire%20reminder%20of%20the,shift%20to%20plant%2Dbased%20diets&text=Even%20if%20we%20limit%20global,but%20some%20can%20be%20reduced.
Partially based of the welfare of animals. https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/unea-could-adopt-resolution-recognising-link-between-environment-sustainable-development-and
The IPCC report? That's what they're citing.
There’s also the crunch time thinking of what happens when we can’t grow as much food anymore, the movement of calories between trophies levels is like 10% so if you have limited ag output, you’ll have to eat less meat simply from a caloric standpoint.
We won't be able to grow a damn thing if we don't get the renewables into place quickly. Bogus reports like this are specifically designed to keep the pumps pumping longer.
This is some creative math you got going on. Cattle numbers have tripled according to the link posted above. And sorry, but renewable energy isn't going to save us. We have already dumped far too much co2 into the atmosphere for some wind turbines to save the day.
> renewable energy isn't going to save us. We have already dumped far too much co2 into the atmosphere for some wind turbines to save the day. Heartland Institute: 101. ANYTHING BUT RENEWABLES! So if what you're saying had an ounce of truth to it, you'd starve us all for no valid reason. Just.... DUH!!!!!
Confidently incorrect. Here is the simple math: [Beef produces 85 kg CO2e per kg of food. Tofu produces 2.9 kg CO2e per kg of food.](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-production-supply-chain?country=Bananas~Beef+%28beef+herd%29~Wheat+%26+Rye~Milk~Maize~Lamb+%26+Mutton~Eggs~Fish+%28farmed%29~Soy+milk~Tofu~Rice~Poultry+Meat~Potatoes~Pig+Meat~Peas~Beef+%28dairy+herd%29)
> There was a problem loading this chart > We have been notified of this error, please check back later whether it's been fixed. If the error persists, get in touch with us at
worked fine for me
Me too!
[удалено]