4 ms·

This study[0] and several other studies by UN, Oxford Uni etc disagree with you. The single best thing an individual can do is immensely reduce or completely av

This study[0] and several other studies by UN, Oxford Uni etc disagree with you. The single best thing an individual can do is immensely reduce or completely avoid meat and dairy. Imagine millions and millions of people doing this, behavioural change will trigger system’s change. It’s something we can do today, just need to decide whether having a burger is more important or not. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w

anonzzzies 3y ago
> Imagine millions and millions of people doing this But they won't. Even here on HN, where some smart people roam, touching their meat (like, eating LESS of it, not quitting altogether) will make them into incoherent angry (I guess) men. And that's of course a big step, smaller steps are even not a thing for many people; not flying, no car, hell, here people even refuse to obey the law of not topping up (or filling) their swimming pools even though there is an huge water shortage. The only way will be if governments decide to step in. Problem there is; a lot of gov people and the people they support or who support them, are giving the wrong examples; big cars, slabs of meat, villas all over the place, bailing out struggling airlines, making sure the energy/oil companies can make more profits, making sure farmers have to obey nothing of these new rules because export products (so they can keep using whatever amount of water, cut ancient trees down just like that, ...) etc. People pick the govs they like, which means they hope either things will get better for themselves (not the world) or remain the same.
- uxcolumbo 3y ago
  Yes true, but we have to keep trying to convince people in our circles. Otherwise we're effed. I would have hoped that especially this HN crowd would change their mind because it's quite clear and logical that not consuming meat and dairy will mean requiring fewer resources and producing less pollution.
  - layer8 3y ago
    Human habits, preferences, and desires rarely submit to pure logic. Humans are more emotional than rational.
    - candiodari 3y ago
      It's not just that. If these products aren't used anymore, we'll substitute them to some other form of consumption. If you want to have impact as an individual, study engineering/physics or indeed climate change ...
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    A lot of people just don't care.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > some smart people roam, touching their meat (like, eating LESS of it, not quitting altogether) will make them into incoherent angry (I guess) men Not so smart then. > The only way will be if governments decide to step in That's why more people vegan == more pressure for governments not to ignore the issue.
- fulafel 3y ago
  Lots of people, also on HN, now follow climate friendly diets. In reality it is the meat eaters, not vegans, who are very loud and vocal about their diet. But I agree we need much stronger regulation.
jgilias 3y ago
The URL is not working, can you update it? The study probably explores what would happen if _everyone_ did that. And that’s the issue right there. Everyone casts a wide net, it includes climate deniers, poor people, rich people, hard core dairy aficionados, etc, etc. The single most important thing an individual can do is inducing systemic change in one way or another. Preferably somehow avoiding alienating the bulk of the audience, as that may end up with people in power who actively undermine any efforts towards solving the situation.
- uxcolumbo 3y ago
  I clicked it - It works. There is also a link to the PDF - try this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w.pdf. RE: The single most important thing an individual can do is inducing systemic change in one way or another. And that was my point. Vote with your wallet and inform others in your circle that reducing / avoiding will have positive impact. This will trigger systemic change. Is it the only thing we can do, no it's not, but it's something you and I can do right now.
WithinReason 3y ago
I everyone in the world adopted a vegan diet CO2 emissions would drop by 13%. Still eating pork, poultry, eggs and fish would reduce it by 8.6%: https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food
- mrob 3y ago
  That's "CO2e" (CO2 equivalent, measured in global warming potential), not CO2. The time scale isn't specified, despite making a big difference in some cases, so I'll assume it's calculated over 20 years, which seems to be the most common. It's important to distinguish CO2 from CO2e, because a large part of CO2e emissions from animal farming are methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane emissions could be reduced in multiple ways, e.g. we could switch to farming kangaroos, which don't produce methane, or supplement cow feed with seaweed, which was found to dramatically reduce methane production: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085289 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
  - aziaziazi 3y ago
    We also may stop it altogether, kangaroo included and gain: - those 4.4% co2e difference, which is quite consequent - freshwater savings - land savings (especially forest) - the ability to feel morally good when looking and thinking about the food we eat
- uxcolumbo 3y ago
  It's not just about CO2 - it's also that the large scale meat & dairy industry requires way more resources, destroys natural habitats and creates a ton of pollution.
- myshpa 3y ago
  From the article you've linked: "In a hypothetical scenario in which everyone in the world went vegan by 2050, the regrowth of trees and wilderness could sequester around 547 billion tonnes of additional CO2. Each year we emit around 36 billion tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuels, so that’s equal to around 15 years of emissions at our current levels. They also estimate an additional 225 billion tonnes of CO2 could be stored in soils ..." That's much more impactful than reducing emissions alone. It would store a load of carbon while preserving biodiversity (paramount for healthy ecosystems).
Ekaros 3y ago
Why stop at meat and dairy. Why not go all the way, select handful of optimal foods and only allow those to be sold or grown. Anyone doing anything else would heavily punished? After all, if we ban beef. We have accepted that taste has no meaning in life and we can just ban everything not mandatory like spices and herbs.
- vkou 3y ago
  Why have speed limits on the road? We have accepted that human life is worthless, because cars are allowed to drive fast enough to cause fatal crashes, may as well remove all limits alltogether. --- Absolutist arguments are absolutely absurd.
  - goatlover 3y ago
    Vegan arguments are absolutist. Everyone isn't going to give up meat. I doubt even the majority of people will by 2050. However, it's possible enough people could be convinced to reduce meat consumption to make a difference. It alone won't solve climate change.
- uxcolumbo 3y ago
  Do you think that only animal flesh derived foods are tasty? It's about cutting out food that create the biggest damage to our biosphere, which is the large scale meat & dairy industry. RE: Why not go all the way, select handful of optimal foods and only allow those to be sold or grown. [...] ban everything not mandatory like spices and herbs. This is not about banning meat & dairy. And you can't seriously compare meat & dairy to herbs & spices.
  - bevesce- 3y ago
    I'm eating vegetarian food most of the time, with an exception from time to time. I've tried doing vegan. Vegan food can be tasty or even very tasty. No vegan food is as good as steak or cheese. Another thing is that I have no idea how to eat enough protein, on vegan diet, without feeling terrible.

anonzzzies 3y ago

> Imagine millions and millions of people doing this But they won't. Even here on HN, where some smart people roam, touching their meat (like, eating LESS of it, not quitting altogether) will make them into incoherent angry (I guess) men. And that's of course a big step, smaller steps are even not a thing for many people; not flying, no car, hell, here people even refuse to obey the law of not topping up (or filling) their swimming pools even though there is an huge water shortage. The only way will be if governments decide to step in. Problem there is; a lot of gov people and the people they support or who support them, are giving the wrong examples; big cars, slabs of meat, villas all over the place, bailing out struggling airlines, making sure the energy/oil companies can make more profits, making sure farmers have to obey nothing of these new rules because export products (so they can keep using whatever amount of water, cut ancient trees down just like that, ...) etc. People pick the govs they like, which means they hope either things will get better for themselves (not the world) or remain the same.

uxcolumbo 3y ago
Yes true, but we have to keep trying to convince people in our circles. Otherwise we're effed. I would have hoped that especially this HN crowd would change their mind because it's quite clear and logical that not consuming meat and dairy will mean requiring fewer resources and producing less pollution.
- layer8 3y ago
  Human habits, preferences, and desires rarely submit to pure logic. Humans are more emotional than rational.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    It's not just that. If these products aren't used anymore, we'll substitute them to some other form of consumption. If you want to have impact as an individual, study engineering/physics or indeed climate change ...
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  A lot of people just don't care.
myshpa 3y ago
> some smart people roam, touching their meat (like, eating LESS of it, not quitting altogether) will make them into incoherent angry (I guess) men Not so smart then. > The only way will be if governments decide to step in That's why more people vegan == more pressure for governments not to ignore the issue.
fulafel 3y ago
Lots of people, also on HN, now follow climate friendly diets. In reality it is the meat eaters, not vegans, who are very loud and vocal about their diet. But I agree we need much stronger regulation.

jgilias 3y ago

The URL is not working, can you update it? The study probably explores what would happen if _everyone_ did that. And that’s the issue right there. Everyone casts a wide net, it includes climate deniers, poor people, rich people, hard core dairy aficionados, etc, etc. The single most important thing an individual can do is inducing systemic change in one way or another. Preferably somehow avoiding alienating the bulk of the audience, as that may end up with people in power who actively undermine any efforts towards solving the situation.

uxcolumbo 3y ago
I clicked it - It works. There is also a link to the PDF - try this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w.pdf. RE: The single most important thing an individual can do is inducing systemic change in one way or another. And that was my point. Vote with your wallet and inform others in your circle that reducing / avoiding will have positive impact. This will trigger systemic change. Is it the only thing we can do, no it's not, but it's something you and I can do right now.

WithinReason 3y ago

I everyone in the world adopted a vegan diet CO2 emissions would drop by 13%. Still eating pork, poultry, eggs and fish would reduce it by 8.6%: https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food

mrob 3y ago
That's "CO2e" (CO2 equivalent, measured in global warming potential), not CO2. The time scale isn't specified, despite making a big difference in some cases, so I'll assume it's calculated over 20 years, which seems to be the most common. It's important to distinguish CO2 from CO2e, because a large part of CO2e emissions from animal farming are methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane emissions could be reduced in multiple ways, e.g. we could switch to farming kangaroos, which don't produce methane, or supplement cow feed with seaweed, which was found to dramatically reduce methane production: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085289 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- aziaziazi 3y ago
  We also may stop it altogether, kangaroo included and gain: - those 4.4% co2e difference, which is quite consequent - freshwater savings - land savings (especially forest) - the ability to feel morally good when looking and thinking about the food we eat
uxcolumbo 3y ago
It's not just about CO2 - it's also that the large scale meat & dairy industry requires way more resources, destroys natural habitats and creates a ton of pollution.
myshpa 3y ago
From the article you've linked: "In a hypothetical scenario in which everyone in the world went vegan by 2050, the regrowth of trees and wilderness could sequester around 547 billion tonnes of additional CO2. Each year we emit around 36 billion tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuels, so that’s equal to around 15 years of emissions at our current levels. They also estimate an additional 225 billion tonnes of CO2 could be stored in soils ..." That's much more impactful than reducing emissions alone. It would store a load of carbon while preserving biodiversity (paramount for healthy ecosystems).

Ekaros 3y ago

Why stop at meat and dairy. Why not go all the way, select handful of optimal foods and only allow those to be sold or grown. Anyone doing anything else would heavily punished? After all, if we ban beef. We have accepted that taste has no meaning in life and we can just ban everything not mandatory like spices and herbs.

vkou 3y ago
Why have speed limits on the road? We have accepted that human life is worthless, because cars are allowed to drive fast enough to cause fatal crashes, may as well remove all limits alltogether. --- Absolutist arguments are absolutely absurd.
- goatlover 3y ago
  Vegan arguments are absolutist. Everyone isn't going to give up meat. I doubt even the majority of people will by 2050. However, it's possible enough people could be convinced to reduce meat consumption to make a difference. It alone won't solve climate change.
uxcolumbo 3y ago
Do you think that only animal flesh derived foods are tasty? It's about cutting out food that create the biggest damage to our biosphere, which is the large scale meat & dairy industry. RE: Why not go all the way, select handful of optimal foods and only allow those to be sold or grown. [...] ban everything not mandatory like spices and herbs. This is not about banning meat & dairy. And you can't seriously compare meat & dairy to herbs & spices.
- bevesce- 3y ago
  I'm eating vegetarian food most of the time, with an exception from time to time. I've tried doing vegan. Vegan food can be tasty or even very tasty. No vegan food is as good as steak or cheese. Another thing is that I have no idea how to eat enough protein, on vegan diet, without feeling terrible.