4 ms·

As stated in the article, the reason that this is happening is because of the increasing demand for animal products, so the forest is cleared for cattle and soy

As stated in the article, the reason that this is happening is because of the increasing demand for animal products, so the forest is cleared for cattle and soy, most of which is used as feed for livestock. When we read daunting articles like this and feel a sense of panic or urgency, there is at least one small thing we can do to prevent this issue from worsening: eat as few animal products as possible, which should ideally be none. It has a real effect, and is (in almost all cases) trivial to start.

desertedisland 5y ago
> It has a real effect Let me play devil's advocate here. Because I worry a lot about this. In as much as it affects the outcome of climate change you're wrong: not eating meat, driving and flying less, etc. will not, in any meaningful way, save us from what are increasingly alarming predictions regarding climate change. What you're talking about are straw men. In fact I worry that the effect is negative because everyone pats themselves on the back for these kinds of activities and thinks they've done everything they can when, as I say, the impact of what they've done is essentially negligible and draws attention from what really is driving climate change (and noone seems to talk about). And what really is driving climate change (and numerous other environmental issues - see massive over-fishing, environmental destruction by dredging for sand / mining for minerals, etc.) is the massive shift out of poverty of billions in people in China and India and their demands for housing, cars, travel, construction, etc. The US and Europe have had (fairly dramatically) decreasing carbon emissions for some time now, but all of those decreases (and then some) are erased by the increases in India and China. Particularly China which built 184 new coal plants in 2020 and increased its own CO2 emissions by 4% in the second half of 2020 alone: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUSKBN2A308U https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUSKBN2A308U . Hopefully it does not need to be said that you cannot fault these countries for massively improving the welfare of their citizens or say that this is a bad thing. To be fair to both India and China: both are aware of (do not deny) the problem and are devoting large amounts of resources to finding solutions. But those are the facts. You can virtue signal all you like about being vegan but really you are doing nothing to address the actual problem (and may actually diverting attention away from it).
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Yes, the things you described also have a profound effect on our carbon emissions. Agriculture also accounts for a large portion (those people leaving poverty gotta eat! And they wanna eat meat), and a large portion of agriculture is animal agriculture. So if eliminate or drastically reduce our reliance on animal agriculture, it stands to reason that we'd have an effect on overall carbon emissions. Are there other things that can be done alongside reducing our demand for harmful products? Totally, and a lot of those things will involve regulation of industry, not individual changes in habits. But the good thing is that we don't need to do one or the other, we can do both. I invite you to start doing what you can. > and may actually diverting attention away from it I find it hard to believe that trying to get people to change their consumptions habits in order to reduce our reliance on CO2 and Methane heavy industries is going to result in more carbon and methane. Do you have anything that actually says that folks who are motivated to make changes like this are somehow _less_ motivated to address climate change after? It seems more likely that folks who want to virtue signal ("Climate change is awful, but _I_ won't do anything to help") are those who already weren't gonna do shit, so no loss there, really.
- taylodl 5y ago
  Here's the only solution that's going to solve the climate crises: every person of the world is going to have to realize they they are responsible for their own CO2 output. The goods you buy, the transportation you use, how you heat and cool your home - these are all your choices and all impact your C02 output. Americans on average produce double the amount of CO2 than the Chinese do on average. Americans produce more C02 than Europeans, who in turn also produce more CO2 than the Chinese. Once you realize your CO2 output is your personal responsibility then you can take care of your own business and strive to make changes to reduce your output. You can create demand for green power (not demand, create demand - actually buy green energy), you can make choices as to your thermostat settings, you have choices in what you eat, you have choices in what your purchase - all of these are within your control. Small changes made by hundreds of millions of people can have dramatic impact - in fact that's how we got into this mess in the first place. What doesn't look good is Americans, who produce more C02 than anybody else in the world - by far - throwing up their hands and saying it's hopeless because of India and China, who's citizens are producing far less CO2. It's time for us to clean up our act and lead by example.
bamboozled 5y ago
You stop, another hundred million in China will eat it. Too many people and too much demand. The balance has been lost for now.
- riedel 5y ago
  People try to show symbols of wealth by wasting resources . It should be a sign of wealth if you can avoid polluting your environment. China has one of the richest vegetarian traditions and just recently has developed this absurd craving for meat IMHO, so this is no automatism. We should start putting customs duties on all meat products. German chicken e.g. have destroyed eg. the African chicken market. Live stock is transported over high ways because it is too expensive to slaughter locally. Free trade of animal products just leads to the most absurd effects.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Yes, there are many people who will continue to demand these products. That's exactly why its so important for everyone else to start now. It's not binary; we can reduce the scale of the issue as more and more people stop demanding these things, and that will have a tangible effect on the emissions.
  - zepolen 5y ago
    The life time carbon footprint of an average American exceeds 20 tons, it's important that you don't have children, you could save the planet even more!
- lsllc 5y ago
  You make an excellent point; according to the United Nations [0], in 2021 there are 957 million people across 93 countries who do not have enough to eat. Clearly extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, while some efforts are being proposed (e.g. recent EU Climate Action [1]), it is far too too little, much too late. [0] https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/2021-going-be-bad-year-world-hunger https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/2021-going-be... [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57833807 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57833807
agentultra 5y ago
I watched some documentaries on exactly this effect years ago and went full veggie because of it. Prior I would eat meat when I was out on special occasions but even that was not worth it. There are projects out there to rebuild and regrow the forest. I hope with strong policy and social movements to reduce our demands for animal products that it may recover one day.

desertedisland 5y ago

> It has a real effect Let me play devil's advocate here. Because I worry a lot about this. In as much as it affects the outcome of climate change you're wrong: not eating meat, driving and flying less, etc. will not, in any meaningful way, save us from what are increasingly alarming predictions regarding climate change. What you're talking about are straw men. In fact I worry that the effect is negative because everyone pats themselves on the back for these kinds of activities and thinks they've done everything they can when, as I say, the impact of what they've done is essentially negligible and draws attention from what really is driving climate change (and noone seems to talk about). And what really is driving climate change (and numerous other environmental issues - see massive over-fishing, environmental destruction by dredging for sand / mining for minerals, etc.) is the massive shift out of poverty of billions in people in China and India and their demands for housing, cars, travel, construction, etc. The US and Europe have had (fairly dramatically) decreasing carbon emissions for some time now, but all of those decreases (and then some) are erased by the increases in India and China. Particularly China which built 184 new coal plants in 2020 and increased its own CO2 emissions by 4% in the second half of 2020 alone: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUSKBN2A308U https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUSKBN2A308U . Hopefully it does not need to be said that you cannot fault these countries for massively improving the welfare of their citizens or say that this is a bad thing. To be fair to both India and China: both are aware of (do not deny) the problem and are devoting large amounts of resources to finding solutions. But those are the facts. You can virtue signal all you like about being vegan but really you are doing nothing to address the actual problem (and may actually diverting attention away from it).

sweetheart 5y ago
Yes, the things you described also have a profound effect on our carbon emissions. Agriculture also accounts for a large portion (those people leaving poverty gotta eat! And they wanna eat meat), and a large portion of agriculture is animal agriculture. So if eliminate or drastically reduce our reliance on animal agriculture, it stands to reason that we'd have an effect on overall carbon emissions. Are there other things that can be done alongside reducing our demand for harmful products? Totally, and a lot of those things will involve regulation of industry, not individual changes in habits. But the good thing is that we don't need to do one or the other, we can do both. I invite you to start doing what you can. > and may actually diverting attention away from it I find it hard to believe that trying to get people to change their consumptions habits in order to reduce our reliance on CO2 and Methane heavy industries is going to result in more carbon and methane. Do you have anything that actually says that folks who are motivated to make changes like this are somehow _less_ motivated to address climate change after? It seems more likely that folks who want to virtue signal ("Climate change is awful, but _I_ won't do anything to help") are those who already weren't gonna do shit, so no loss there, really.
taylodl 5y ago
Here's the only solution that's going to solve the climate crises: every person of the world is going to have to realize they they are responsible for their own CO2 output. The goods you buy, the transportation you use, how you heat and cool your home - these are all your choices and all impact your C02 output. Americans on average produce double the amount of CO2 than the Chinese do on average. Americans produce more C02 than Europeans, who in turn also produce more CO2 than the Chinese. Once you realize your CO2 output is your personal responsibility then you can take care of your own business and strive to make changes to reduce your output. You can create demand for green power (not demand, create demand - actually buy green energy), you can make choices as to your thermostat settings, you have choices in what you eat, you have choices in what your purchase - all of these are within your control. Small changes made by hundreds of millions of people can have dramatic impact - in fact that's how we got into this mess in the first place. What doesn't look good is Americans, who produce more C02 than anybody else in the world - by far - throwing up their hands and saying it's hopeless because of India and China, who's citizens are producing far less CO2. It's time for us to clean up our act and lead by example.

bamboozled 5y ago

You stop, another hundred million in China will eat it. Too many people and too much demand. The balance has been lost for now.

riedel 5y ago
People try to show symbols of wealth by wasting resources . It should be a sign of wealth if you can avoid polluting your environment. China has one of the richest vegetarian traditions and just recently has developed this absurd craving for meat IMHO, so this is no automatism. We should start putting customs duties on all meat products. German chicken e.g. have destroyed eg. the African chicken market. Live stock is transported over high ways because it is too expensive to slaughter locally. Free trade of animal products just leads to the most absurd effects.
sweetheart 5y ago
Yes, there are many people who will continue to demand these products. That's exactly why its so important for everyone else to start now. It's not binary; we can reduce the scale of the issue as more and more people stop demanding these things, and that will have a tangible effect on the emissions.
- zepolen 5y ago
  The life time carbon footprint of an average American exceeds 20 tons, it's important that you don't have children, you could save the planet even more!
lsllc 5y ago
You make an excellent point; according to the United Nations [0], in 2021 there are 957 million people across 93 countries who do not have enough to eat. Clearly extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, while some efforts are being proposed (e.g. recent EU Climate Action [1]), it is far too too little, much too late. [0] https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/2021-going-be-bad-year-world-hunger https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/2021-going-be... [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57833807 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57833807

agentultra 5y ago

I watched some documentaries on exactly this effect years ago and went full veggie because of it. Prior I would eat meat when I was out on special occasions but even that was not worth it. There are projects out there to rebuild and regrow the forest. I hope with strong policy and social movements to reduce our demands for animal products that it may recover one day.