4 ms·

Re "Amazon deforestation" — those lands haven't been deforested because of the western country's consumption of meat, they've been deforested because people are

Re "Amazon deforestation" — those lands haven't been deforested because of the western country's consumption of meat, they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you have no right to demand that Brazil stops the deforestation, and in fact you have no sway either, because you are not buying the result of their agriculture anyway. If western countries want the deforestation of the Amazon to stop, the cold, harsh reality is that they should subsidize the price for it. --- As for making personal changes, if eating soy makes you feel any better, sure, do that, but stop shaming people for eating meat. Because in the large scheme of things, switching from meat to soy does mostly nothing for the environment. The reason is that, going vegan, as an individual, only saves you a couple of $ in CO2 emissions per year. That's right. All of your efforts are only worth a couple of $ per year in CO2 emissions. And even if you think that's worth it, those emissions would be re-allocated to industry anyway. Also, ironically, the behavior of people going green changes. If you have an electric car, for example, you might feel the need to ride it more, to make more trips. Because it's cheaper, and you've been a good citizen, you've earned it. And when that happens, and it does, your net emissions might not go as low as you'd think. Never mind that the subsidies for electric cars are yet again subsidies for the rich. Go carless first, then we can talk about not eating meat ;-) --- Real change will come from technological progress. It always came from technological progress. Remember whales? Whales were not saved by political activism, by individuals refusing to use whale oil. Whales were saved because cheap replacements for whale oil became available. Ironically, renewable energy might not be very green at all. Maybe we should address the fact that solar panels are super inefficient, taking up massive land use, and their recycling is super expensive. Instead of investing more in nuclear energy, money is being diverted on solutions that may in fact be worse for the environment than cleaner fossil fuels (e.g. gas). We are currently unable to replace fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives, because "renewable" energy isn't up to snuff, and because of nuclear-phobia, which prevents investments in nuclear power. But sure, let's all eat soy, that will save the planet.

MiroF 6y ago
> they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you have no right to demand that Brazil stops the deforestation, and in fact you have no sway either, because you are not buying the result of their agriculture anyway. Brazil is a net exporter of food, so there goes that narrative. I am certain there are people starving in Brazil, but this is much more of a distribution problem than a "didn't cut down enough trees in the Amazon" problem. > solar panels are super inefficient No longer true, renewables are pretty cost competitive and nuclear is looking less and less good by comparison every day. I say that as a big believer in nuclear power.
- bad_user 6y ago
  > Brazil is a net exporter of food, so there goes that narrative Yes, but it doesn't export that food to western countries. In the US for example, less than 10% of beef is imported, and most of that is from Mexico and Canada. Believe it or not, western countries grow their own meat, and in the west the CO2 and methane emissions for growing meat has been pretty steady, and is a moderate slice of the carbon emissions' pie. > No longer true, renewables are pretty cost competitive Renewables are only cost effective because that cost is subsidized. It's a sham IMO.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    > Yes, but it doesn't export that food to western countries. I don't understand why that matters? Brazil doesn't export to the US because of its FMD problem among its cattle. > CO2 and methane emissions for growing meat has been pretty steady, and is a moderate slice of the carbon emissions' pie. Beef production accounts for 1/3 of all agricultural emissions in the US. Obviously it's not the primary or even a huge share of overall emissions, because there are so many other human activities like driving and using electricity that we are doing all the time. > Renewables are only cost effective because that cost is subsidized. It's a sham IMO. Yeah, it is ridiculous that we subsidize industries to such an extent! Good thing beef and milk production are not subsidized at all...

MiroF 6y ago

> they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you have no right to demand that Brazil stops the deforestation, and in fact you have no sway either, because you are not buying the result of their agriculture anyway. Brazil is a net exporter of food, so there goes that narrative. I am certain there are people starving in Brazil, but this is much more of a distribution problem than a "didn't cut down enough trees in the Amazon" problem. > solar panels are super inefficient No longer true, renewables are pretty cost competitive and nuclear is looking less and less good by comparison every day. I say that as a big believer in nuclear power.

bad_user 6y ago
> Brazil is a net exporter of food, so there goes that narrative Yes, but it doesn't export that food to western countries. In the US for example, less than 10% of beef is imported, and most of that is from Mexico and Canada. Believe it or not, western countries grow their own meat, and in the west the CO2 and methane emissions for growing meat has been pretty steady, and is a moderate slice of the carbon emissions' pie. > No longer true, renewables are pretty cost competitive Renewables are only cost effective because that cost is subsidized. It's a sham IMO.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > Yes, but it doesn't export that food to western countries. I don't understand why that matters? Brazil doesn't export to the US because of its FMD problem among its cattle. > CO2 and methane emissions for growing meat has been pretty steady, and is a moderate slice of the carbon emissions' pie. Beef production accounts for 1/3 of all agricultural emissions in the US. Obviously it's not the primary or even a huge share of overall emissions, because there are so many other human activities like driving and using electricity that we are doing all the time. > Renewables are only cost effective because that cost is subsidized. It's a sham IMO. Yeah, it is ridiculous that we subsidize industries to such an extent! Good thing beef and milk production are not subsidized at all...