8 ms·

In the meantime, beef alternatives are quite convincing these days. It’s a fairly small step to take that can dramatically lower your individual footprint.

by rtev 4y ago

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
The people preaching to us about reducing our footprints, are the same ones taking their private jets to Davos, and emitting a lifetime of CO2 in the process. Sorry, going to skip the highly processed chemicals plants that is fake meat, and will pass on the bug burgers too. No crickets for dinner here!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  I mean, the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians I know own zero private jets. That said, even if they did, and we all took the route of dismissing any change on the basis that the advocates of that change aren't perfect, as no advocates ever are, well then it seems that nothing would ever change.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    It's said because meat consumption is a blip compared to all the things people do, most of those vegans and vegetarians included. It's also difficult for anything lacto-ovo vegetarian to get all they need without relying on imports way away from their home country. You'd arguably do more staying flexitarian but getting your produce as local and seasonal as possible to cut out the emissions caused by transport. And maybe not taking that second transatlantic flight. Notice how neither of those are pushed half as hard as "go vegan and save the planet".
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - virgildotcodes 4y ago
      >It's said because meat consumption is a blip compared to all the things people do, most of those vegans and vegetarians included. I mean, animal agriculture accounts for 14.5% of GHG emissions, roughly more than all global transport according to the IPCC.[1] Few of us have the ability to unilaterally shut down a coal plant or an oil company, but a large number of us do have the ability to change our consumption habits to be less destructive. >It's also difficult for anything lacto-ovo vegetarian to get all they need without relying on imports way away from their home country. >You'd arguably do more staying flexitarian but getting your produce as local and seasonal as possible to cut out the emissions caused by transport. Just to address the notion about food transport GHG emissions, you'd actually have a bigger impact on your emissions by eating vegan once a week than if all your food was entirely locally grown for the entire week.[2] Food miles are a very small fraction of the emissions of food production, especially that of animal products. Finally, it doesn't have to be either or. People can ride their bicycles, eat local, take fewer flights, as well as reduce their meat consumption. [1]https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf [2]https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
      - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
        >[2] One source doesn't equate consensus. Given the myriads of criticisms among diets, food production and emissions, I'd ask you to remain skeptical of anything advocating for more open loops. Plenty of sources put transport far higher than agriculture, and many of the differences are based on methodology. No, this doesn't mean the critics are right. >Finally, it doesn't have to be either or. Not the point. One of these is pushed aggressively. The others aren't. That alone should warrant enough skepticism regarding the entire thing. Even if we don't agree on what is the worst, it's ridiculous to push one but not the other. That's how you create political friction. >Few of us have the ability to unilaterally shut down a coal plant or an oil company, but a large number of us do have the ability to change our consumption habits to be less destructive. You can't keep compensating for a few unwilling individuals taking advantage of the breathing room opened up. Playing a game prisoner's dilemma should be the first thing to get your head closer on the wanted list. How this is even negotiable in the face of a global threat is beyond me.
  - byyll 4y ago
    You should practice what you preach.
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    > I mean, the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians I know own zero private jets. That is a personal anecdote. Many prominent folks are painting themselves as green activists telling us how to live While they take private jets everywhere Own huge yachts Own multiple huge houses Giant consumers of fossil fuels, 1000x regular folks. > That said, even if they did, and we all took the route of dismissing any change on the basis that the advocates of that change aren't perfect, as no advocates ever are, well then it seems that nothing would ever change Basically, you are giving them a pass.
- kibwen 4y ago
  Who said anything about private jets? Who said anything about crickets? Since when are meat alternatives any more full of "highly processed chemicals" than ordinary meat products? Why does this read like a Facebook comment?
  - newsclues 4y ago
    There is a big push in the media and from food industry to normalize meat substitutes and bug protein.
    - seized 4y ago
      Meat substitutes sure. No one is trying to normalize crickets, don't be dramatic. And I say that as someone always searching for new vegetarian or vegan recipes and ideas.
      - byyll 4y ago
        No one except for the EU Commission[1], WEF[2][3] and other such small institutions and organizations. Don't try to downplay it. [1] https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1558014404855209986 https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1558014404855209986 [2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-might-be-eating-insects-soon/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-migh... [3] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-insects-the-role-they-deserve-in-our-food-systems/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-i...
  - bendbro 4y ago
    I would give everything to live under your rock
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  I'll bite - suppose that the only people supporting lower carbon output are jetsetting cosmopolitan filthy commy lib-ruhls. If one person convinces a thousand people or ten thousand people or a hundred thousand people to support systems that reduce those emissions and offsets their personal use by orders of magnitude would you still scoff? I don't expect a sincere response since this seems to me to be just parroting of cable news talking points which tends to be a predictor of discourse level but I'd love to be surprised.
  - newsclues 4y ago
    I’m a bike riding hippie that doesn’t own a car and I haven’t flown in close to a decade. Given that people like me exist that support reducing pollution from fossil fuels (climate change is a silly term), we don’t need to speculate that only the jet setting elites are interested in saving the planet. I do question the entire movement when the leaders are hypocrites and i sometimes think it’s a wasted effort for the average person.
    - kurupt213 4y ago
      It’s completely out of our control. It would be better to invest in tech to mitigate the impact
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - 11235813213455 4y ago
        that's what Elon Musk would say, or most people who still live their overpolluting lifestyle and watch climate change like another of their daily entertainment Our individual lifestyle and footprint is like a vote, it looks inefficient but it works as a whole (I know about the huge inertia of global warming, but definitely still worth to do something)
- kurupt213 4y ago
  Edible insects are a major source of gut parasites
- seized 4y ago
  There is a huge amount of food options before you get to crickets. Plant based meat didn't come before tofu, chickpeas, lentils, beans, and so many other ingredients and options.
bendbro 4y ago
From my cold, greasy hands
kurupt213 4y ago
Or not. What if North America was still covered in bison…would you suggest slaughtering all the herds?
- 11235813213455 4y ago
  it's not 0 or 1 it's cutting most animal farming and keeping/improving biodiversity
- rtev 4y ago
  What if all humans were cows? Would I suggest slaughtering all the people-cows? Neither of those questions is based in reality, so the answers don’t really matter.
- pietro72ohboy 4y ago
  That ecosystem is gone and gone with it are elements of that ecosystem that would’ve prevented our climate situation. The land and the grasslands those bison inhabited has been destroyed. The massive forests of that day are gone. You cannot cherrypick one element of the past and use it’s isolated existence as an argument against steps taken in our current situation

In the meantime, beef alternatives are quite convincing these days. It’s a fairly small step to take that can dramatically lower your individual footprint.

by rtev 4y ago

In the meantime, beef alternatives are quite convincing these days. It’s a fairly small step to take that can dramatically lower your individual footprint.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago

The people preaching to us about reducing our footprints, are the same ones taking their private jets to Davos, and emitting a lifetime of CO2 in the process. Sorry, going to skip the highly processed chemicals plants that is fake meat, and will pass on the bug burgers too. No crickets for dinner here!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
virgildotcodes 4y ago
I mean, the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians I know own zero private jets. That said, even if they did, and we all took the route of dismissing any change on the basis that the advocates of that change aren't perfect, as no advocates ever are, well then it seems that nothing would ever change.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  It's said because meat consumption is a blip compared to all the things people do, most of those vegans and vegetarians included. It's also difficult for anything lacto-ovo vegetarian to get all they need without relying on imports way away from their home country. You'd arguably do more staying flexitarian but getting your produce as local and seasonal as possible to cut out the emissions caused by transport. And maybe not taking that second transatlantic flight. Notice how neither of those are pushed half as hard as "go vegan and save the planet".
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    >It's said because meat consumption is a blip compared to all the things people do, most of those vegans and vegetarians included. I mean, animal agriculture accounts for 14.5% of GHG emissions, roughly more than all global transport according to the IPCC.[1] Few of us have the ability to unilaterally shut down a coal plant or an oil company, but a large number of us do have the ability to change our consumption habits to be less destructive. >It's also difficult for anything lacto-ovo vegetarian to get all they need without relying on imports way away from their home country. >You'd arguably do more staying flexitarian but getting your produce as local and seasonal as possible to cut out the emissions caused by transport. Just to address the notion about food transport GHG emissions, you'd actually have a bigger impact on your emissions by eating vegan once a week than if all your food was entirely locally grown for the entire week.[2] Food miles are a very small fraction of the emissions of food production, especially that of animal products. Finally, it doesn't have to be either or. People can ride their bicycles, eat local, take fewer flights, as well as reduce their meat consumption. [1]https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf [2]https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
    - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
      >[2] One source doesn't equate consensus. Given the myriads of criticisms among diets, food production and emissions, I'd ask you to remain skeptical of anything advocating for more open loops. Plenty of sources put transport far higher than agriculture, and many of the differences are based on methodology. No, this doesn't mean the critics are right. >Finally, it doesn't have to be either or. Not the point. One of these is pushed aggressively. The others aren't. That alone should warrant enough skepticism regarding the entire thing. Even if we don't agree on what is the worst, it's ridiculous to push one but not the other. That's how you create political friction. >Few of us have the ability to unilaterally shut down a coal plant or an oil company, but a large number of us do have the ability to change our consumption habits to be less destructive. You can't keep compensating for a few unwilling individuals taking advantage of the breathing room opened up. Playing a game prisoner's dilemma should be the first thing to get your head closer on the wanted list. How this is even negotiable in the face of a global threat is beyond me.
- byyll 4y ago
  You should practice what you preach.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  > I mean, the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians I know own zero private jets. That is a personal anecdote. Many prominent folks are painting themselves as green activists telling us how to live While they take private jets everywhere Own huge yachts Own multiple huge houses Giant consumers of fossil fuels, 1000x regular folks. > That said, even if they did, and we all took the route of dismissing any change on the basis that the advocates of that change aren't perfect, as no advocates ever are, well then it seems that nothing would ever change Basically, you are giving them a pass.
kibwen 4y ago
Who said anything about private jets? Who said anything about crickets? Since when are meat alternatives any more full of "highly processed chemicals" than ordinary meat products? Why does this read like a Facebook comment?
- newsclues 4y ago
  There is a big push in the media and from food industry to normalize meat substitutes and bug protein.
  - seized 4y ago
    Meat substitutes sure. No one is trying to normalize crickets, don't be dramatic. And I say that as someone always searching for new vegetarian or vegan recipes and ideas.
    - byyll 4y ago
      No one except for the EU Commission[1], WEF[2][3] and other such small institutions and organizations. Don't try to downplay it. [1] https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1558014404855209986 https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1558014404855209986 [2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-might-be-eating-insects-soon/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-migh... [3] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-insects-the-role-they-deserve-in-our-food-systems/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-i...
- bendbro 4y ago
  I would give everything to live under your rock
idiotsecant 4y ago
I'll bite - suppose that the only people supporting lower carbon output are jetsetting cosmopolitan filthy commy lib-ruhls. If one person convinces a thousand people or ten thousand people or a hundred thousand people to support systems that reduce those emissions and offsets their personal use by orders of magnitude would you still scoff? I don't expect a sincere response since this seems to me to be just parroting of cable news talking points which tends to be a predictor of discourse level but I'd love to be surprised.
- newsclues 4y ago
  I’m a bike riding hippie that doesn’t own a car and I haven’t flown in close to a decade. Given that people like me exist that support reducing pollution from fossil fuels (climate change is a silly term), we don’t need to speculate that only the jet setting elites are interested in saving the planet. I do question the entire movement when the leaders are hypocrites and i sometimes think it’s a wasted effort for the average person.
  - kurupt213 4y ago
    It’s completely out of our control. It would be better to invest in tech to mitigate the impact
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - 11235813213455 4y ago
      that's what Elon Musk would say, or most people who still live their overpolluting lifestyle and watch climate change like another of their daily entertainment Our individual lifestyle and footprint is like a vote, it looks inefficient but it works as a whole (I know about the huge inertia of global warming, but definitely still worth to do something)
kurupt213 4y ago
Edible insects are a major source of gut parasites
seized 4y ago
There is a huge amount of food options before you get to crickets. Plant based meat didn't come before tofu, chickpeas, lentils, beans, and so many other ingredients and options.

bendbro 4y ago

From my cold, greasy hands

kurupt213 4y ago

Or not. What if North America was still covered in bison…would you suggest slaughtering all the herds?

11235813213455 4y ago
it's not 0 or 1 it's cutting most animal farming and keeping/improving biodiversity
rtev 4y ago
What if all humans were cows? Would I suggest slaughtering all the people-cows? Neither of those questions is based in reality, so the answers don’t really matter.
pietro72ohboy 4y ago
That ecosystem is gone and gone with it are elements of that ecosystem that would’ve prevented our climate situation. The land and the grasslands those bison inhabited has been destroyed. The massive forests of that day are gone. You cannot cherrypick one element of the past and use it’s isolated existence as an argument against steps taken in our current situation