14 ms·

> I've seen numerous promising business ideas to capture carbon and convert it into useful materials; I think it's more feasible to do that than to force vegani

by valw 7y ago

> I've seen numerous promising business ideas to capture carbon and convert it into useful materials; I think it's more feasible to do that than to force veganism on every one. Yeah, we've all seen them - they make for fantastic headlines. None of them is as viable as protecting forests / planting trees by a long shot. They systematically fail to mention that the energy consumption is super high or that they're not scalable in another way - at least not in time. > Cattle likely won't change. I'm going to keep eating meat [...] more feasible to do that than to force veganism on every one. You don't need everyone to go vegan - we only need people to eat a lot less meat and diaries, and / or choose meat with a smaller footprint (e.g chicken). It's simply not reasonable to use 40% of arable lands to feed cattle given the environmental and food challenges of the 21st century. If you're not willing to make the relatively small lifestyle change that is changing your diet, then let me tell you with blunt honesty: you're an instance of the most severe cause of climate change - privileged people not willing to give up on some of their comfort. This attitude is also collectively irrational, because climate change if not prevented will force us to much more radical lifestyle changes. I do hope you will reconsider.

jodrellblank 7y ago
60% of America is overweight or obese, and America throws out enough food to feed .. a lot of people, every day. Shame me for eating meat when you stop them from overeating food full stop - and all the farm machinery and transport and packaging involved in that. I don't have children, I don't drive them to school in a SUV or to a holiday in DisneyWorld, I have never launched a SpaceX rocket, or lived on my own in a full size house. I have never been on a cruise. I don't live or work in an air-conditioned place. To put it bluntly, f' off about calling people "the most severe cause of climate change" for eating a beef sandwich without considering anything else. It's unhelpful, provocative, and completely incorrect. I didn't attend an international destination wedding this year, which a lot of my family did. How many bacon sandwiches does that earn me compared to my family? If your answer is none because climate change is a global catastrophe and everyone has to pitch in, then what incentive does that give anyone? If any carbon slack of my reduced comfort is just getting eaten up by other people's indifference, aren't I better off being indifferent as well?
- valw 7y ago
  > f' off about calling people "the most severe cause of climate change" for eating a beef sandwich without considering anything else. It's unhelpful, provocative, and completely incorrect. That's an entire mischaracterization of my argument, which was about willingness to change one's lifestyle in general, not specifically about eating a beef sandwich.
  - jodrellblank 7y ago
    As in recent headline, Carnival Cruise Lines emit more pollution than all the cars in Europe[1]. Ten times more. And I'm "with blunt honesty: an instance of the most severe cause of climate change"? No. Just so much no. [1] https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/news-opinion/carnival-cruise-ships-generate-10-times-more-pollution-than-all-of-europes-cars https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/news-opinion/carnival...
- dantondwa 7y ago
  Yeah, I agree with what you are saying. This approach has put all the responsibility on the individual and has comfortably concealed the fact that a problem of this scale must be approached from above and in a systemic way. Yes, individuals can make a difference, in mass. So can laws that force them to act in a certain way and laws which actually touch the interests of the big polluters. Making the powerless majority feel guilty about their insignificant choices is not the solution, and it is just a way to not face the responsability of the big and influential culprits.
bin0 7y ago
> privileged people I don't eat a ton of beef, but no, beef is relatively affordable (at least in America). But I do eat a lot more chicken, and not a ton of beef. With that said, I want a good steak once every few months and a burger once a week. More importantly, I don't want the government saying "thou shalt" about my beef consumption, nor do I want people finger-wagging at me about it. America can sustainably raise cattle. She has requisite land. It seems that people are saying that because everyone else can't do it, we need to change. This is also the tragedy of the commons. If I emit less, others will feel they can emit more. I refuse to be "the sucker" that loses this game theory problem. With that said, I don't emit that much (all things considered). My biggest carbon outputs are driving (which I have to do) and air conditioning (I will not give this up; come live in hundred-degree Texas summers without it and then tell me to give it up). So I don't consider myself to be a catastrophic contributor to any thing. Besides, would money not be better spent curing cancer? I'm not sure that I believe the "impending doom" stuff about global warming. Humans are the most remarkably adaptable species on the planet; we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be.
- valw 7y ago
  > With that said, I don't emit that much (all things considered) Cool, how much? IIRC, sustainability would require an individual average below 2 teqCO2/year. > Besides, would money not be better spent curing cancer? Look at what the world would look like if climate change is not prevented: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-like-4degc-warmer https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l.... Think of the consequences in famines (whole countries transformed into deserts), flooding, and the mass migrations and wars that would ensue. So no, cancer is not the priority, not when people will die by the hundreds of millions before reaching the age for getting cancer. > I'm not sure that I believe the "impending doom" stuff about global warming. Then you are in denial, and need to be exposed to more science. Again, sorry for being blunt. > Humans are the most remarkably adaptable species on the planet; we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be. Yeah sure, we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich, but we will have no problem adapting collectively to most of our current living spaces becoming uninhabitable.
  - 7y ago

by valw 7y ago

jodrellblank 7y ago

60% of America is overweight or obese, and America throws out enough food to feed .. a lot of people, every day. Shame me for eating meat when you stop them from overeating food full stop - and all the farm machinery and transport and packaging involved in that. I don't have children, I don't drive them to school in a SUV or to a holiday in DisneyWorld, I have never launched a SpaceX rocket, or lived on my own in a full size house. I have never been on a cruise. I don't live or work in an air-conditioned place. To put it bluntly, f' off about calling people "the most severe cause of climate change" for eating a beef sandwich without considering anything else. It's unhelpful, provocative, and completely incorrect. I didn't attend an international destination wedding this year, which a lot of my family did. How many bacon sandwiches does that earn me compared to my family? If your answer is none because climate change is a global catastrophe and everyone has to pitch in, then what incentive does that give anyone? If any carbon slack of my reduced comfort is just getting eaten up by other people's indifference, aren't I better off being indifferent as well?

valw 7y ago
> f' off about calling people "the most severe cause of climate change" for eating a beef sandwich without considering anything else. It's unhelpful, provocative, and completely incorrect. That's an entire mischaracterization of my argument, which was about willingness to change one's lifestyle in general, not specifically about eating a beef sandwich.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  As in recent headline, Carnival Cruise Lines emit more pollution than all the cars in Europe[1]. Ten times more. And I'm "with blunt honesty: an instance of the most severe cause of climate change"? No. Just so much no. [1] https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/news-opinion/carnival-cruise-ships-generate-10-times-more-pollution-than-all-of-europes-cars https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/news-opinion/carnival...
dantondwa 7y ago
Yeah, I agree with what you are saying. This approach has put all the responsibility on the individual and has comfortably concealed the fact that a problem of this scale must be approached from above and in a systemic way. Yes, individuals can make a difference, in mass. So can laws that force them to act in a certain way and laws which actually touch the interests of the big polluters. Making the powerless majority feel guilty about their insignificant choices is not the solution, and it is just a way to not face the responsability of the big and influential culprits.

bin0 7y ago

> privileged people I don't eat a ton of beef, but no, beef is relatively affordable (at least in America). But I do eat a lot more chicken, and not a ton of beef. With that said, I want a good steak once every few months and a burger once a week. More importantly, I don't want the government saying "thou shalt" about my beef consumption, nor do I want people finger-wagging at me about it. America can sustainably raise cattle. She has requisite land. It seems that people are saying that because everyone else can't do it, we need to change. This is also the tragedy of the commons. If I emit less, others will feel they can emit more. I refuse to be "the sucker" that loses this game theory problem. With that said, I don't emit that much (all things considered). My biggest carbon outputs are driving (which I have to do) and air conditioning (I will not give this up; come live in hundred-degree Texas summers without it and then tell me to give it up). So I don't consider myself to be a catastrophic contributor to any thing. Besides, would money not be better spent curing cancer? I'm not sure that I believe the "impending doom" stuff about global warming. Humans are the most remarkably adaptable species on the planet; we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be.

valw 7y ago
> With that said, I don't emit that much (all things considered) Cool, how much? IIRC, sustainability would require an individual average below 2 teqCO2/year. > Besides, would money not be better spent curing cancer? Look at what the world would look like if climate change is not prevented: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-like-4degc-warmer https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l.... Think of the consequences in famines (whole countries transformed into deserts), flooding, and the mass migrations and wars that would ensue. So no, cancer is not the priority, not when people will die by the hundreds of millions before reaching the age for getting cancer. > I'm not sure that I believe the "impending doom" stuff about global warming. Then you are in denial, and need to be exposed to more science. Again, sorry for being blunt. > Humans are the most remarkably adaptable species on the planet; we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be. Yeah sure, we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich, but we will have no problem adapting collectively to most of our current living spaces becoming uninhabitable.
- 7y ago