4 ms·

Bingo. Not much gain to be had here when you look at the actual sources of emissions by category. Tackling electricity production and transportation should be #

by cal5k 7y ago

Bingo. Not much gain to be had here when you look at the actual sources of emissions by category. Tackling electricity production and transportation should be #1 and #2, since they are (more) easily influenced by the state and could be brought down to near-zero emissions within, say, 25 years. Railing at people to stop eating meat because “it’s causing global warming” is at best ineffective and at worst disingenuous.

Dirlewanger 7y ago
>Railing at people to stop eating meat because “it’s causing global warming” is at best ineffective and at worst disingenuous Right, but one of the biggest annoyances I have with right-wing blogs like Reason is that 95% of their content is just reactionary "Actually, liberals aren't quite right about X" crap while offering no alternatives/solutions. At least "stop eating meat" is something with a net positive.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  That's the argument that helps people give up doing something important instead? "At least I'm doing something". When that something is insignificant when there are better ways to contribute.
- cal5k 7y ago
  Look at either side of the political spectrum and you'll see clickbait garbage. They shouldn't be a barometer for correctness. There are basically only two things that are going to slow/stop the rise in CO2 emissions: shift to low/no-carbon sources of energy, including natural gas and nuclear, and retool transportation networks to favour electric wherever possible. Obviously planes will be running on kerosene for the foreseeable future, but cars, trucks, and ships could all be electric within a quarter century. Eating less/no meat is a perfectly acceptable ethical choice, but it should be divorced form serious discussion of the root causes of carbon emissions.
- QuantumAphid 7y ago
  What is a net positive about "stop eating meat" unless you're livestock? From a nutrition perspective it's not a positive thing to "stop eating meat". Besides changing your diet there are hundreds of other net positive (yet virtually inconsequenial) steps you can take to reduce your carbon footprint. - Wash laundry with cold water - Hang your laundry on a clothes line to dry - Not manage and maintain a grass lawn - Get healthy enough to get off/reduce perscription meds - Drive a hybrid or an EV - Have no/fewer offspring - Don't have pets - Don't work out or exercise (you'll expend more energy, eat more and breathe more co2) - Don't drink alcohol (wine, beer, spirits) - Don't eat chocolate (if meat is somehow uneccessary, certainly chocolate, wine, palm oil and tons of other nutritionally high GHG foods) - Don't play or support activities which waste land, e.g., golf, football, soccer, graveyards, etc.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  If you subscribe to the theory that people have some amount of maximum hardship they're willing to undergo for the environment, then we should focus on maximum impact, minimum hardship actions. Things like "no meat", then, which have significant hardship and insignificant benefits, displace other, more beneficial changes. A similar argument could be made for plastic straw bans. Basically - if the choice isn't "nothing OR stop eating meat" + "nothing OR switch to more fuel efficient cars" but instead "nothing OR stop eating meat OR switch to more fuel efficient cars", then encouraging "stop eating meat" and not an actually significant change is suboptimal.

by cal5k 7y ago

Dirlewanger 7y ago

>Railing at people to stop eating meat because “it’s causing global warming” is at best ineffective and at worst disingenuous Right, but one of the biggest annoyances I have with right-wing blogs like Reason is that 95% of their content is just reactionary "Actually, liberals aren't quite right about X" crap while offering no alternatives/solutions. At least "stop eating meat" is something with a net positive.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
That's the argument that helps people give up doing something important instead? "At least I'm doing something". When that something is insignificant when there are better ways to contribute.
cal5k 7y ago
Look at either side of the political spectrum and you'll see clickbait garbage. They shouldn't be a barometer for correctness. There are basically only two things that are going to slow/stop the rise in CO2 emissions: shift to low/no-carbon sources of energy, including natural gas and nuclear, and retool transportation networks to favour electric wherever possible. Obviously planes will be running on kerosene for the foreseeable future, but cars, trucks, and ships could all be electric within a quarter century. Eating less/no meat is a perfectly acceptable ethical choice, but it should be divorced form serious discussion of the root causes of carbon emissions.
QuantumAphid 7y ago
What is a net positive about "stop eating meat" unless you're livestock? From a nutrition perspective it's not a positive thing to "stop eating meat". Besides changing your diet there are hundreds of other net positive (yet virtually inconsequenial) steps you can take to reduce your carbon footprint. - Wash laundry with cold water - Hang your laundry on a clothes line to dry - Not manage and maintain a grass lawn - Get healthy enough to get off/reduce perscription meds - Drive a hybrid or an EV - Have no/fewer offspring - Don't have pets - Don't work out or exercise (you'll expend more energy, eat more and breathe more co2) - Don't drink alcohol (wine, beer, spirits) - Don't eat chocolate (if meat is somehow uneccessary, certainly chocolate, wine, palm oil and tons of other nutritionally high GHG foods) - Don't play or support activities which waste land, e.g., golf, football, soccer, graveyards, etc.
DuskStar 7y ago
If you subscribe to the theory that people have some amount of maximum hardship they're willing to undergo for the environment, then we should focus on maximum impact, minimum hardship actions. Things like "no meat", then, which have significant hardship and insignificant benefits, displace other, more beneficial changes. A similar argument could be made for plastic straw bans. Basically - if the choice isn't "nothing OR stop eating meat" + "nothing OR switch to more fuel efficient cars" but instead "nothing OR stop eating meat OR switch to more fuel efficient cars", then encouraging "stop eating meat" and not an actually significant change is suboptimal.