One Simple Change to Reduce Your Climate Impact? Swap Out Beef
One Simple Change to Reduce Your Climate Impact? Swap Out Beef
Replacing beef with a different protein — even for just one meal — can cut the emissions footprint of a person’s diet that day by as much as half.
You're viewing a single thread.
If a single rich asshole can fly in a private jet and release more CO2 in a year than I could produce in a decade…
Then my personal dinner plate is at the bottom on the list of steps to take.
As someone who never owned a car, bikes everywhere, and eats well… I’m FUCKING sick of being told that the issue is what I eat while the majority of the problem comes from those far richer, more culpable and FAR more capable of improving things than my dinner plate.
I’m FUCKING sick of being told that the issue is what I eat
Not just that.
- we're at fault for pollution (the Italian guy playing the native american trash on road commercial from the 70s which was really an ad campaign to deflect from industrial polluters)
- we're at fault for poisoning our water (trisodium phosphate was removed from all home dish/laundry soaps rendering the machines less effective, while industrial/restaurant industry, the larger users, still use it to this day)
- we're at fault for watering lawns when industrial agriculture consumes 97% of the water in areas of the US where it makes no sense to grow crops (yes, lawns in environments where they are not natural make no sense, but when you look at the scale and they use a fraction of the remaining 3% that also includes businesses that aren't agriculture, and homes...)
- we're at fault for bags at stores (why don't they offer reusable tubs as part of being a customer? no, let's start a war between plastic/paper/reusable bags and get the customers infighting)
- we're at fault for not buying $70,000 electric cars to reduce our carbon footprint (even though replacing something that exists with something new causes a bigger carbon footprint, and grid collapse would immediately occur)
- we're at fault for pollution, smog days because we drive to work when the rich employers claw back working from home and public transport (in the US at least) is hampered by the same people that want us to buy those over-priced cars instead of removing the need for them
- we're at fault for the carbon we generate by flying (specifically a US issue) even though there are not options connecting large swaths of the US that make any sense (Amtrak is overpriced, semi-unreliable on some routes, and can add days onto a trip, if you can even get to the last mile by train; Greyhound is trying to enshittify themselves by making bus terminals hard to access; driving is conceptually a bigger carbon creator than flying for longer distances; driving an electric car is too slow with the addition of limited range and charge times and lack of charge stations on a cross-country trip)
Those in power (of the media, of business, of government) make sure to make us feel like everything that is out of our control and broken is our fault, and we should feel responsible for it. This is by design, keeping us feeling bad and infighting amongst ourselves makes us lose sight of the real problem: those very same people pulling the puppet strings.
-
Individual Action Matters: Despite the grossly outsized role of corporations in environmental degradation, individual actions are not just symbolic; they can cumulatively lead to significant impacts. Reducing meat consumption, minimizing waste, and choosing sustainable transportation options can drive demand for more eco-friendly products and services, influencing market trends. if people stop buying and using their products they'll have to stop or change.
-
Power of Consumer Demand: Companies respond to consumer behavior. By choosing environmentally friendly products and services, individuals can signal to companies that there's a market for sustainability, encouraging them to innovate and reduce their environmental impact. We love in a capitalist system, this is the reality of how to change this.
-
EVs and Energy Transition: The transition to electric vehicles (EVs) is a critical component of reducing transportation-related emissions. While the current energy grid isn't perfect, the shift towards renewable energy sources means that EVs will become increasingly cleaner over time. Plus, advancements in battery technology and infrastructure are addressing concerns about range and charging times.
-
Personal Responsibility and Education: By taking personal responsibility for our environmental footprint, we contribute to a culture of sustainability. Educating ourselves and others about the impact of our choices can lead to a greater collective effort to combat climate change.
-
Grassroots Movements and Policy Change: Individual and community actions can lead to policy changes. Grassroots movements have historically been powerful agents for change, influencing local, national, and global policies on environmental issues.
-
Sustainable Practices are Accessible: While not everyone can afford an EV, there are many other accessible ways to reduce one's carbon footprint, such as reducing energy consumption, supporting local and sustainable businesses, and advocating for green policies.
**tldr its obviously important to recognize the role of evil corporations and demand systemic change, however underestimating the power of individual and collective action can be a missed opportunity. Each level of action reinforces the other, creating a more comprehensive approach to tackling climate change and environmental issues.
Individual Action Matters: Despite the grossly outsized role of corporations in environmental degradation, individual actions are not just symbolic; they can cumulatively lead to significant impacts.
This is very important and widely ignored. Think of how many people you'd have to convince to, eg, ban private jet ownership, in order to take the billionaires' jets away. Then think of what the impact would be if you convinced the same number of people to stop eating beef.
-
Every little bit helps...but also, eliminating billionaires would just be better.
I mean, I agree with you I principle but as more time goes on I wonder if the “right” mentality is the least effective.
Sure a 1% change in 1000 people can add up… But what if 2 people can outweigh all that change? What if 1000 people’s action are irrelevant if 2 people don’t care?
So what is a better approach? Trying to convince 1000 people of altruistic sacrifice or regulating something crazy only 2 people are doing?
I agree with you in principle and in practice
Sounds like it's time for an obligatory "eat the rich". Two problems eliminated with one set of cutlery.
Rich asshole: see, they keep eating beef. Why should I change.
Reality: we all do
More like…
NOT rich asshole: I don’t even own a home. I had a steak last month I think.
RICH asshole: I fly across the country twice a day in a private gulfstream and eat whatever I want.
OBLIVIOUS HIPPIES: clearly middle class people eating beef is the issue. Why won’t you change?
Both are the problem. An activity that is less harmful but more people do can add up to more than a more harmful activity that very few people do.
No pathway where we avoid the worst of what's coming doesn't involve this sort of change for most people.
Certainly not absolving everyone of their own personal responsibility to the problem and generally all avenues should be encouraged.
But reality is convincing the entire population to sacrifice what they eat while ignoring 75% of the problem isnt helping and won’t win hearts and minds.
As I mentioned in other comment: what improves are world more RIGHT NOW? Trying to convince thousands to altruistically sacrifice what they fucking eat? Or better regulating the emissions of a single source that would outweigh them all?
Half of an America votes republican… whining about their dinner plate is useless compared to just regulating the emissions of a type of transportation used by a few billionaires. Why do
I never see articles about reducing the emissions of farms/ranches. Apparently there is nothing they can do. It’s clearly all my fault for eating…
Different actions aren't separable in that way. Adopting one "green" behaviour will shift peoples attitudes to others and make wide top-level change easier to implement. "What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming" has a good discussion of this and there may be some more recent resources. This is especially true when both (all) changes are necessary. I can't easily stop private jets but I can quite easily not choose the worst option for my diet (and also other things like avoiding discretionary flights). Seems really clear cut to me that we should be doing the bare minimum in our personal lives whilst we organise to make the worst offenders accountable.
I agree with you that regulation (of meat production) is vital to all this as well but that will mean costs going up which needs to have enough people on board and aware of the harms to facilitate. We need enough change in attitudes to facilitate the necessary changes in regulation and law (whilst also tackling the inequality, the powerful and structural economic system that promotes harmful behaviours for their benefit). .
A small chunk of the population is eating beef daily. I'm a lot more concerned about that than people eating 100g per year
I don’t entirely disagree with your point, but that’s a severe misrepresentation of how much beef the average person eats
Can you do anything about rich assholes flying?
Yes, maybe, if you get enough people together and convince them to work hard enough against the massive inertia of capitalism and insert steps three through fifty here and ultimately change the laws.
Can you change your diet?
Yes. You could do that today.