4 ms·

I don't think individuals require deep change in order to solve climate change. Most sources of emissions when broken down by industry ultimately just point bac

I don't think individuals require deep change in order to solve climate change. Most sources of emissions when broken down by industry ultimately just point back to the energy generation. The only deep change that an individual can do that will make an actual impact is going vegan. Adding solar panels to your roof is not a drastic change, in fact in Australia it makes good economic sense. Driving an electric car is not a radically different experience to driving an ICE car. Telecommuting and working more days from home is, for many people, a desirable change to the way we work. Once coal and then gas has been eliminated, 99% of new model cars are electric and lab grown beef matches the taste and texture a real cow the problem will be 80% solved. All of this can be achieved without a single person needing to change their lifestyle.

philjohn 8y ago
Got any scientific studies to back up that going Vegan is better for the environment?
- KnightOfWords 8y ago
  http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental-cost-food http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmen... "High-impact beef producers create 105kg of CO2 equivalents and use 370m2 of land per 100 grams of protein, a huge 12 and 50 times greater than low-impact beef producers. Low-impact beans, peas, and other plant-based proteins can create just 0.3kg of CO2 equivalents (including all processing, packaging, and transport), and use just 1m2 of land per 100 grams of protein."
  - philjohn 8y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522483/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522483/ Shows Vegan and Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian neck and neck. As another poster pointed out, in many areas living a pure vegan diet is far WORSE for the environment as you have to expend considerable CO2 getting the correct foodstuffs there. There's also the open question about many countries where the land is only suitable for pasture as it's not arable.
- jamil7 8y ago
  I think this would be pretty difficult to study since there isn't "one" vegan diet. It differs radically depending on where someone is and what they choose to eat and the complexity of food distribution. On the surface removing meat, diary and eggs from your diet is definitely better for the environment and you can easily find scientific studies to back this up. I find the problems start to arise when you take into account what kind of fats and proteins vegans are supplementing with, eg a vegan living in Scandinavia that's buying imported avocados from South America is probably having a considerable environmental impact by doing so.
  - philjohn 8y ago
    Exactly - which is why I take offence to people insisting it's a panacea. For some people in some regions it may very well be, but it's not for all, and trying to sell it that way is a little disingenuous.
ForHackernews 8y ago
Why is going vegan a "deep change"? What if everyone ate one beefy burger a year? I keep seeing this bandied about but it really feels like people pushing their ideology as the answer to whatever question was asked.
mjevans 8y ago
Cheap clean energy is indeed the core problem. With enough energy even inefficient processes like creating synthetic high energy fuels to condense more energy in to less weight for air travel are possible. Short term: Build MODERN, waste reducing, nuclear (fission) plants. If proliferation is a concern, require the military be hired to protect them and the logs/supervision open to the public with short delay. Long term: I like the 3001 / Gundam OO / generic scifi solution. Solar collectors. Point lots of solar energy at a focal location and do useful things with it.
DomreiRoam 8y ago
Without going full vegan, you can already reduce the meat consumption and also switching from red meat to poultry meat. We overeat meat and it is both bad for our body and our environment.
Theodores 8y ago
I think it is also important to get an education on how we have ended up in a society where these meat products are considered normal. I was 'born vegetarian' and I struggled to eat meat. I tried my hardest and genuinely believed that if I did not eat meat like everyone else then I would end up physically weak, without a fully developed brain etc. I endured eating burgers in the belief that they were really good for me. I never learned to cook the stuff and got over my fears of not eating meat. Laziness really, not wanting to have the hygiene problems of a contaminated kitchen. A few meat food scares (BSE) helped me to take the easy route (for me) of living without eating meat. Haven't died of a lack of B12 yet and I know plants don't have any need for B12 but we do. Anyway, I have had time since the days of teenage fear to think more positively about what I do and do not eat. There are notable athletes, thinkers and Hollywood stars that are strictly vegetarian. My meat eating friends only seem to know of Hitler as being famous for being vegetarian but I know not everything in this world is black and white, just because Hitler didn't eat burgers doesn't mean that I should. Now role models are all well and good, however, the history of food is far more fascinating and I really like understanding how we got here. The Chicken Tax is what got me to do my own thinking on the history of food. My grandmother was the last generation to remember when chickens were not what you ate every day. There was a time - not so long ago - when people saved up to eat a chicken based meal, this would be Christmas or a birthday, as a treat. Chicken is now wolfed down as part of a sandwich, sat at the desk, not savoured or enjoyed in some special ritual as per seventy years ago. The farmers in the USA changed the game to the intensive farming we have for chickens, the Chicken Tax that petrol heads know of was the gateway for me to learn that story. Eggs were not a year round product, there was Easter and maybe a 'second brood' later in the year. So even eggs - a substitute for meat - are not actually what we think they are, we have forgotten the seasonal aspect. Then there is the the cow. For most of mankind's history with the cow the cow was a beast of burden with added milk. You didn't eat your cows in times gone past when a cow was more like a domestic appliance, for pulling the plough. Only if there was plague and famine would you want to eat the cow. Doing so meant harsh times. The Dutch invented a new harness for the horse in the 17th century that enabled horses to pull the plough. This put the cow out of work so there was a change on the farm. At around the same time the guy that inspired Darwin and did all the selective breeding made cows into the beef product every burger scoffer so enjoys. The cows that pulled the plough were nearer goat sized, albeit podgy goat sized, hey were not these giant things we have today, stuffed with corn and killed before the diseases from their corn fed diet kill them. Then there are the sheep. I grew up in an area where wool was what mattered. I have studied the local history and absent from it is any mention of eating lamb or mutton. The products that were shipped out of the area were wool, more wool and more wool. The world was getting clothed not fed. Clearly our ancestors had many uses for the animals they lived with and every scrap went to 'good' use. Unless you were lord of the manor then game was off the table too. People were not at all well nourished with the chemicals we sprinkle on the land today - doors in old houses are only 5 foot 6 inches tall, they didn't need them to cater for 6' tall people. I think it is really important to understand a little bit about how we got here and why it is that we think we need beef. The ethics of the slaughterhouse is divisive, an in-depth appreciation of history is not. Really we have been conned into believing so much of the modern life, tricked into believing we need things that we do not.

philjohn 8y ago

Got any scientific studies to back up that going Vegan is better for the environment?

KnightOfWords 8y ago
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental-cost-food http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmen... "High-impact beef producers create 105kg of CO2 equivalents and use 370m2 of land per 100 grams of protein, a huge 12 and 50 times greater than low-impact beef producers. Low-impact beans, peas, and other plant-based proteins can create just 0.3kg of CO2 equivalents (including all processing, packaging, and transport), and use just 1m2 of land per 100 grams of protein."
- philjohn 8y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522483/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522483/ Shows Vegan and Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian neck and neck. As another poster pointed out, in many areas living a pure vegan diet is far WORSE for the environment as you have to expend considerable CO2 getting the correct foodstuffs there. There's also the open question about many countries where the land is only suitable for pasture as it's not arable.
jamil7 8y ago
I think this would be pretty difficult to study since there isn't "one" vegan diet. It differs radically depending on where someone is and what they choose to eat and the complexity of food distribution. On the surface removing meat, diary and eggs from your diet is definitely better for the environment and you can easily find scientific studies to back this up. I find the problems start to arise when you take into account what kind of fats and proteins vegans are supplementing with, eg a vegan living in Scandinavia that's buying imported avocados from South America is probably having a considerable environmental impact by doing so.
- philjohn 8y ago
  Exactly - which is why I take offence to people insisting it's a panacea. For some people in some regions it may very well be, but it's not for all, and trying to sell it that way is a little disingenuous.

ForHackernews 8y ago

Why is going vegan a "deep change"? What if everyone ate one beefy burger a year? I keep seeing this bandied about but it really feels like people pushing their ideology as the answer to whatever question was asked.

mjevans 8y ago

Cheap clean energy is indeed the core problem. With enough energy even inefficient processes like creating synthetic high energy fuels to condense more energy in to less weight for air travel are possible. Short term: Build MODERN, waste reducing, nuclear (fission) plants. If proliferation is a concern, require the military be hired to protect them and the logs/supervision open to the public with short delay. Long term: I like the 3001 / Gundam OO / generic scifi solution. Solar collectors. Point lots of solar energy at a focal location and do useful things with it.

DomreiRoam 8y ago

Without going full vegan, you can already reduce the meat consumption and also switching from red meat to poultry meat. We overeat meat and it is both bad for our body and our environment.

Theodores 8y ago

I think it is also important to get an education on how we have ended up in a society where these meat products are considered normal. I was 'born vegetarian' and I struggled to eat meat. I tried my hardest and genuinely believed that if I did not eat meat like everyone else then I would end up physically weak, without a fully developed brain etc. I endured eating burgers in the belief that they were really good for me. I never learned to cook the stuff and got over my fears of not eating meat. Laziness really, not wanting to have the hygiene problems of a contaminated kitchen. A few meat food scares (BSE) helped me to take the easy route (for me) of living without eating meat. Haven't died of a lack of B12 yet and I know plants don't have any need for B12 but we do. Anyway, I have had time since the days of teenage fear to think more positively about what I do and do not eat. There are notable athletes, thinkers and Hollywood stars that are strictly vegetarian. My meat eating friends only seem to know of Hitler as being famous for being vegetarian but I know not everything in this world is black and white, just because Hitler didn't eat burgers doesn't mean that I should. Now role models are all well and good, however, the history of food is far more fascinating and I really like understanding how we got here. The Chicken Tax is what got me to do my own thinking on the history of food. My grandmother was the last generation to remember when chickens were not what you ate every day. There was a time - not so long ago - when people saved up to eat a chicken based meal, this would be Christmas or a birthday, as a treat. Chicken is now wolfed down as part of a sandwich, sat at the desk, not savoured or enjoyed in some special ritual as per seventy years ago. The farmers in the USA changed the game to the intensive farming we have for chickens, the Chicken Tax that petrol heads know of was the gateway for me to learn that story. Eggs were not a year round product, there was Easter and maybe a 'second brood' later in the year. So even eggs - a substitute for meat - are not actually what we think they are, we have forgotten the seasonal aspect. Then there is the the cow. For most of mankind's history with the cow the cow was a beast of burden with added milk. You didn't eat your cows in times gone past when a cow was more like a domestic appliance, for pulling the plough. Only if there was plague and famine would you want to eat the cow. Doing so meant harsh times. The Dutch invented a new harness for the horse in the 17th century that enabled horses to pull the plough. This put the cow out of work so there was a change on the farm. At around the same time the guy that inspired Darwin and did all the selective breeding made cows into the beef product every burger scoffer so enjoys. The cows that pulled the plough were nearer goat sized, albeit podgy goat sized, hey were not these giant things we have today, stuffed with corn and killed before the diseases from their corn fed diet kill them. Then there are the sheep. I grew up in an area where wool was what mattered. I have studied the local history and absent from it is any mention of eating lamb or mutton. The products that were shipped out of the area were wool, more wool and more wool. The world was getting clothed not fed. Clearly our ancestors had many uses for the animals they lived with and every scrap went to 'good' use. Unless you were lord of the manor then game was off the table too. People were not at all well nourished with the chemicals we sprinkle on the land today - doors in old houses are only 5 foot 6 inches tall, they didn't need them to cater for 6' tall people. I think it is really important to understand a little bit about how we got here and why it is that we think we need beef. The ethics of the slaughterhouse is divisive, an in-depth appreciation of history is not. Really we have been conned into believing so much of the modern life, tricked into believing we need things that we do not.