4 ms·

> And this is just in the USA. Only 9% of emissions comes from agriculture. Even if you cut out all of that, you don't even nearly make a dent in greenhouse emi

> And this is just in the USA. Only 9% of emissions comes from agriculture. Even if you cut out all of that, you don't even nearly make a dent in greenhouse emissions. The real challenge is figuring out how we clean up our transportation, energy and industrial infrastructure. The problem is, consumption doesn't necessarily have an impact there. See https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-red... and the link to the Nature article: "The research also finds that enormous changes to farming are needed to avoid destroying the planet’s ability to feed the 10 billion people expected to be on the planet in a few decades. Food production already causes great damage to the environment, via greenhouse gases from livestock, deforestation and water shortages from farming, and vast ocean dead zones from agricultural pollution. But without action, its impact will get far worse as the world population rises by 2.3 billion people by 2050 and global income triples, enabling more people to eat meat-rich western diets." > I think I principally just really disagree with you about consumer activism. What should consumers do then? Nothing? Demand better meat alternatives? Keep eating meat? Stop eating meat? Would your views here change if you agreed consumption has a big impact?

yowlingcat 8y ago
They would if I agreed, but I don't. Consumers have every right to demand better meat alternatives, but I think that's more because they're tasty and cheaper if anything. But they should understand that their consumption doesn't really matter and is a red herring. If you care about help solve climate change, the first step is understanding the largest contributors to it. For what it's worth, I do think that industrial agriculture is heavily flawed and unsustainable. But that cross cuts across meat and plant based agriculture, and I think it has more to do with how we turn arable land into monocultures that deplete the soil and destroy biodiversity. That's a problem, for sure, but it's not the biggest problem as far as climate change is concerned. The biggest problem with respect to climate change is sustainable industrial infrastructure. It is not enough to consume sustainable products. We must demand and politically organize for sustainable infrastructure globally -- demand the allocation of resources, the stewardship of research and infrastructural development that will require. I think moralizing about the choices of what people eat suffers from a bit of tunnel vision. I'm also skeptical of any study that draws conclusions about climate change based on 9% of something's contribution to it. What is expected to happen with the other 91%?

yowlingcat 8y ago

They would if I agreed, but I don't. Consumers have every right to demand better meat alternatives, but I think that's more because they're tasty and cheaper if anything. But they should understand that their consumption doesn't really matter and is a red herring. If you care about help solve climate change, the first step is understanding the largest contributors to it. For what it's worth, I do think that industrial agriculture is heavily flawed and unsustainable. But that cross cuts across meat and plant based agriculture, and I think it has more to do with how we turn arable land into monocultures that deplete the soil and destroy biodiversity. That's a problem, for sure, but it's not the biggest problem as far as climate change is concerned. The biggest problem with respect to climate change is sustainable industrial infrastructure. It is not enough to consume sustainable products. We must demand and politically organize for sustainable infrastructure globally -- demand the allocation of resources, the stewardship of research and infrastructural development that will require. I think moralizing about the choices of what people eat suffers from a bit of tunnel vision. I'm also skeptical of any study that draws conclusions about climate change based on 9% of something's contribution to it. What is expected to happen with the other 91%?