4 ms·

That's barely the tip of the iceberg of what to do. Public transportation or bicycling, avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, c

That's barely the tip of the iceberg of what to do. Public transportation or bicycling, avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, cup-lids, straws, etc. are an absolute no-go—which means boycutting starbucks and similar if necessary), recycling, rallying against use of polluting materials (less polypropylene and soft plastic packaging in super-markets, for example), less materialistic imports (container ships use the nastiest oils to operate, as international waters have no emission regulations), thinking of ways to make being environmentally friendly simpler, etc. And even more importantly, getting others to do the same. The difference from one person doing all this right will just be a drop of water in the ocean. If it does not spread, it does not matter. Also, as someone who cares about the environment, I would suggest not putting vegan up front as your efforts. Regardless of cause or effect, "vegan" carries a stigma. "Vegetarian" communicates what is needed if the idea is to reduce pollution from cattle farming, and it is less likely to cause instant dismissal. And, also, while replacing meat with vegetable farming has fewer gas emissions than cattle farming, that still does not deal with our farming techniques being unsustainable, or that many types of farming causing massive deforestation (soy, anyone?). Nor does it reduce massive oil pollution, stop the oceans from filling with microplastics, etc. It's but one small thing on a very long list of things we need to fix.

Spellchamp 8y ago
Spreading behaviour is so important. Which means it's important to make it "cool" to be environmentally conscious. I think people sometimes underestimate the cool factor when it comes to spreading ideas.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  You can do all the cool but it is going to have no result when industry is responsible for a third of GHG, agriculture about a fourth and transportation a fifth. To stop those takes regulations and laws. Major investments too which won't happen if not forced either. Best targeted results for efficacy of behaviour modification at a fifth. Good luck. This with self-efficacy training. You cannot do that with everyone so you're bound to fail. Worse if people cannot adapt at all. Tell a guy they now go 50 miles to work by bike is not going to work at all. You cannot destroy a mountain by removing a few shovels of ground. The action and change has to be both forced and massive.
lellotope 8y ago
A note about diet: There are some recent studies suggesting that globally, on average, the most environmentally friendly diets have some animal product component because of their ability to make use of landmass that we wouldn't be able to make use of directly. E.g., cattle can eat plants that grow in areas we can't grow human-friendly crops on. I can't find citations to these studies offhand unfortunately. (this is an example but not what I had in mind: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522483/) But what I remember is that globally, the most environmentally friendly diets had some small animal product component. This also probably varies a lot by location too, so it probably is the case that for some people, the best diet might be vegan; for others it might involve more animal product. Just pointing this out, because there are nonpolitical-psychological-sociological reasons for a "soft" approach on plant-based-diets.
- moosey 8y ago
  This is true, but from what I've read it is only true for places that are small scale and local. Anything large scale, like feeding a city, would benefit greatly from a reduction, or elimination, of animal products.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  I think a key component here is just minimizing the meat-component of the diet. Meat would not at all be a problem if produced in smaller amounts. The current level is just absurd waste (I would guess mostly to support fast-food production?), and we absolutely do not need this amount of meat in our diet. It is, however, extremely nutritious, so a small meat consumption would both be sufficient and much more sustainable. Even just 1/10th of the current scale would likely reduce any problems to be insignificant.
kbenson 8y ago
> avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, cup-lids, straws, etc. are an absolute no-go—which means boycutting starbucks and similar if necessary) Starbucks gets a lot of flack, from a lot of directions, but it's worth noting that companies go that could contribute a lot to this problem, they do a lot to promote better usage patterns. For example, you can bring your own cup to get filled at Starbucks, instead of using one of their cups (which uses recycled content).[1] > And even more importantly, getting others to do the same. And that's the reason I'm commenting. Really, I could care less whether people go to Starbucks. I'm there once a month or two (but I do gets treats for the kids there about once a week). But if we are supposed to be willing to change our behavior to make a difference, we should definitely be willing to look into whether a company is trying to do something good for the environment before denigrating them as a problem with regard to the environment. If a company is taking steps in the right direction, we should call that out as a positive example, to encourage them to do more and others to follow in their example. Ignoring their positive actions, or worse, using them as a negative example, will not encourage positive behavior on their part. 1: https://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/environment/cups-and-materials https://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/environment/cups-an...
- arghwhat 8y ago
  > Starbucks gets a lot of flack, from a lot of directions, but it's worth noting that companies go that could contribute a lot to this problem, they do a lot to promote better usage patterns. In that case, I do apologize. I have never in my life gone to a Starbucks, but my point was avoiding one-time use devices of any kind, regardless of what convenience it may bring, with the exception of when it is truly necessary (such as medical packaging). However, do note that this also includes whatever one-time devices the company themselves use to run their service. It would be a quite standard PR stunt to present visible environmentally friendly options (that potentially largely go unused), while not doing anything at all to the less visible parts of the company.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > It would be a quite standard PR stunt to present visible environmentally friendly options (that potentially largely go unused), while not doing anything at all to the less visible parts of the company. Sure, but it's good to start somewhere. If we get companies competing on a level of environmental friendliness, then it quickly goes beyond being superficial, as those gains are quickly achieved and further ones are sought. To some degree I think that's part of what's going on with Starbucks. They've positioned themselves as an environmentally aware company, and one that cares about world issues (carrying specific types of beans, etc). Part of this is obviously playing to their audience (and part is it starting in a locale and with a CEO that cater to these attitudes), but that's about all we can expect from most companies. Thankfully, it's something that can be worked with. If consumers express interest, companies will respond. There's no reason for you to apologize, I just wanted to point out that we should be careful to not draw that line at those companies who are "good" or "great". We're at the level were we should be very welcoming of those that are only acceptable in their behavior with regard to this, but that's still worlds ahead of most, and that's how we move the average.
moosey 8y ago
Something like 75% of all non-meat food grown in the US is fed to animals for later eating. When you complain about soy destroying forests, you are complaining about meat consumption: > Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market for U.S. soybeans is for production of foods for human consumption, like salad oil or frying oil, which uses about 15 percent of U.S. soybeans. A distant third market for soybeans is biodiesel, using only about 5 percent of the U.S. soybean crop. In 2013, soybean exports reached record highs, exporting 43 million metric tons to overseas markets. China remains the largest export market for U.S. soybeans. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten... You'll find this same thing over and over again when discussing clearing land for crop growth. The vast majority of it is to support meat production. Going vegan is probably the number one thing you can do to fight climate change and pollution in general, as an individual. Especially since switching would eliminate vast amounts of farming, and the associated chemicals and water loss. edit: and deforestation. It is not a small thing, not at all, and to diminish it is to deny the massive sea of change that is required to actually fight climate change with 7B people on the planet. Sure, there is a lot of cultural blowback against veganism, but I think it is manufactured via marketing, just like the anemic belief in climate change in the United States.
- akiselev 8y ago
  It's unfortunate that more people don't internalize this fact. One of the first things you learn in middle/high school ecology is that 90% of available energy is lost between each step in the food chain. Producers can only convert about 10% of the sun's energy to useful electrons in photosynthesis, herbivores only get 10% of the energy it takes to grow their food, and carnivores only get 10% of the energy herbivores take in. Some factors like the decreased non-predatory death improve those numbers for industrial agriculture but not by much. In US agriculture, we have some estimates for the ratio of output calories to the input calories [1] that are astounding. For every 100 kcal of feed stock, we get ~19 kcal back from chicken, ~7 kcal from beef, and a whopping 1 kcal from shrimp. Essentially, every 1000 kcal of beef takes 14,000 kcal of corn/soy/alfa-alfa and 1000 kcal of shrimp takes 100,000 kcal of whatever it is shrimp eat. [1] From the book Diet, Energy, and Global Warming by Eshel and Martin

Spellchamp 8y ago

Spreading behaviour is so important. Which means it's important to make it "cool" to be environmentally conscious. I think people sometimes underestimate the cool factor when it comes to spreading ideas.

AstralStorm 8y ago
You can do all the cool but it is going to have no result when industry is responsible for a third of GHG, agriculture about a fourth and transportation a fifth. To stop those takes regulations and laws. Major investments too which won't happen if not forced either. Best targeted results for efficacy of behaviour modification at a fifth. Good luck. This with self-efficacy training. You cannot do that with everyone so you're bound to fail. Worse if people cannot adapt at all. Tell a guy they now go 50 miles to work by bike is not going to work at all. You cannot destroy a mountain by removing a few shovels of ground. The action and change has to be both forced and massive.

lellotope 8y ago

A note about diet: There are some recent studies suggesting that globally, on average, the most environmentally friendly diets have some animal product component because of their ability to make use of landmass that we wouldn't be able to make use of directly. E.g., cattle can eat plants that grow in areas we can't grow human-friendly crops on. I can't find citations to these studies offhand unfortunately. (this is an example but not what I had in mind: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522483/) But what I remember is that globally, the most environmentally friendly diets had some small animal product component. This also probably varies a lot by location too, so it probably is the case that for some people, the best diet might be vegan; for others it might involve more animal product. Just pointing this out, because there are nonpolitical-psychological-sociological reasons for a "soft" approach on plant-based-diets.

moosey 8y ago
This is true, but from what I've read it is only true for places that are small scale and local. Anything large scale, like feeding a city, would benefit greatly from a reduction, or elimination, of animal products.
arghwhat 8y ago
I think a key component here is just minimizing the meat-component of the diet. Meat would not at all be a problem if produced in smaller amounts. The current level is just absurd waste (I would guess mostly to support fast-food production?), and we absolutely do not need this amount of meat in our diet. It is, however, extremely nutritious, so a small meat consumption would both be sufficient and much more sustainable. Even just 1/10th of the current scale would likely reduce any problems to be insignificant.

kbenson 8y ago

> avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, cup-lids, straws, etc. are an absolute no-go—which means boycutting starbucks and similar if necessary) Starbucks gets a lot of flack, from a lot of directions, but it's worth noting that companies go that could contribute a lot to this problem, they do a lot to promote better usage patterns. For example, you can bring your own cup to get filled at Starbucks, instead of using one of their cups (which uses recycled content).[1] > And even more importantly, getting others to do the same. And that's the reason I'm commenting. Really, I could care less whether people go to Starbucks. I'm there once a month or two (but I do gets treats for the kids there about once a week). But if we are supposed to be willing to change our behavior to make a difference, we should definitely be willing to look into whether a company is trying to do something good for the environment before denigrating them as a problem with regard to the environment. If a company is taking steps in the right direction, we should call that out as a positive example, to encourage them to do more and others to follow in their example. Ignoring their positive actions, or worse, using them as a negative example, will not encourage positive behavior on their part. 1: https://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/environment/cups-and-materials https://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/environment/cups-an...

arghwhat 8y ago
> Starbucks gets a lot of flack, from a lot of directions, but it's worth noting that companies go that could contribute a lot to this problem, they do a lot to promote better usage patterns. In that case, I do apologize. I have never in my life gone to a Starbucks, but my point was avoiding one-time use devices of any kind, regardless of what convenience it may bring, with the exception of when it is truly necessary (such as medical packaging). However, do note that this also includes whatever one-time devices the company themselves use to run their service. It would be a quite standard PR stunt to present visible environmentally friendly options (that potentially largely go unused), while not doing anything at all to the less visible parts of the company.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > It would be a quite standard PR stunt to present visible environmentally friendly options (that potentially largely go unused), while not doing anything at all to the less visible parts of the company. Sure, but it's good to start somewhere. If we get companies competing on a level of environmental friendliness, then it quickly goes beyond being superficial, as those gains are quickly achieved and further ones are sought. To some degree I think that's part of what's going on with Starbucks. They've positioned themselves as an environmentally aware company, and one that cares about world issues (carrying specific types of beans, etc). Part of this is obviously playing to their audience (and part is it starting in a locale and with a CEO that cater to these attitudes), but that's about all we can expect from most companies. Thankfully, it's something that can be worked with. If consumers express interest, companies will respond. There's no reason for you to apologize, I just wanted to point out that we should be careful to not draw that line at those companies who are "good" or "great". We're at the level were we should be very welcoming of those that are only acceptable in their behavior with regard to this, but that's still worlds ahead of most, and that's how we move the average.

moosey 8y ago

Something like 75% of all non-meat food grown in the US is fed to animals for later eating. When you complain about soy destroying forests, you are complaining about meat consumption: > Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market for U.S. soybeans is for production of foods for human consumption, like salad oil or frying oil, which uses about 15 percent of U.S. soybeans. A distant third market for soybeans is biodiesel, using only about 5 percent of the U.S. soybean crop. In 2013, soybean exports reached record highs, exporting 43 million metric tons to overseas markets. China remains the largest export market for U.S. soybeans. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten... You'll find this same thing over and over again when discussing clearing land for crop growth. The vast majority of it is to support meat production. Going vegan is probably the number one thing you can do to fight climate change and pollution in general, as an individual. Especially since switching would eliminate vast amounts of farming, and the associated chemicals and water loss. edit: and deforestation. It is not a small thing, not at all, and to diminish it is to deny the massive sea of change that is required to actually fight climate change with 7B people on the planet. Sure, there is a lot of cultural blowback against veganism, but I think it is manufactured via marketing, just like the anemic belief in climate change in the United States.

akiselev 8y ago
It's unfortunate that more people don't internalize this fact. One of the first things you learn in middle/high school ecology is that 90% of available energy is lost between each step in the food chain. Producers can only convert about 10% of the sun's energy to useful electrons in photosynthesis, herbivores only get 10% of the energy it takes to grow their food, and carnivores only get 10% of the energy herbivores take in. Some factors like the decreased non-predatory death improve those numbers for industrial agriculture but not by much. In US agriculture, we have some estimates for the ratio of output calories to the input calories [1] that are astounding. For every 100 kcal of feed stock, we get ~19 kcal back from chicken, ~7 kcal from beef, and a whopping 1 kcal from shrimp. Essentially, every 1000 kcal of beef takes 14,000 kcal of corn/soy/alfa-alfa and 1000 kcal of shrimp takes 100,000 kcal of whatever it is shrimp eat. [1] From the book Diet, Energy, and Global Warming by Eshel and Martin