5 ms·

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 chan

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.
    - virgildotcodes 4y ago
      > One source doesn't equate consensus. I've attached a few more sources to this post, but it does seem to be the general consensus as far as I've seen. Do you have any sources that contradict this? It's pretty wild, but the emissions from transportation just so happen to be completely dwarfed by the emissions from the actual food production itself, especially when it comes to animal products. "We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. [...] Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food."[1] >Even if we don't agree on what is the worst, it's ridiculous to push one but not the other. I mean, what is the solution? People are supposed to always talk about everything, instead of a specific thing, every single time they talk about mitigating climate change? I don't think that's an effective communication strategy. As for the validity of talking so much about reducing meat consumption, study[2] after study[4] shows that "Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet."[3] and "“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car.”[5] It makes sense to talk about it as it's also one of the easiest, highest impact, most tangible changes to make. >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. Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Sources - [1]https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f [2]https://josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Accepted%20Manuscript.pdf https://josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Acc... [3]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth?CMP=fb_gu https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding... [4]https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ [5]https://unfccc.int/blog/we-need-to-talk-about-meat https://unfccc.int/blog/we-need-to-talk-about-meat https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912418300361?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221191241... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181023110627.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181023110627.h...
- timeon 4y ago
  > without relying on imports way away from their home country Not really. As first thing, you can try beans. We can go from there...
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.

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.
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    > One source doesn't equate consensus. I've attached a few more sources to this post, but it does seem to be the general consensus as far as I've seen. Do you have any sources that contradict this? It's pretty wild, but the emissions from transportation just so happen to be completely dwarfed by the emissions from the actual food production itself, especially when it comes to animal products. "We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. [...] Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food."[1] >Even if we don't agree on what is the worst, it's ridiculous to push one but not the other. I mean, what is the solution? People are supposed to always talk about everything, instead of a specific thing, every single time they talk about mitigating climate change? I don't think that's an effective communication strategy. As for the validity of talking so much about reducing meat consumption, study[2] after study[4] shows that "Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet."[3] and "“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car.”[5] It makes sense to talk about it as it's also one of the easiest, highest impact, most tangible changes to make. >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. Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Sources - [1]https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f [2]https://josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Accepted%20Manuscript.pdf https://josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Acc... [3]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth?CMP=fb_gu https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding... [4]https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ [5]https://unfccc.int/blog/we-need-to-talk-about-meat https://unfccc.int/blog/we-need-to-talk-about-meat https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912418300361?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221191241... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181023110627.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181023110627.h...
timeon 4y ago
> without relying on imports way away from their home country Not really. As first thing, you can try beans. We can go from there...

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.