Vegan diet massively cuts environmental damage, study shows

So would cracking down on the unnecessary private flights billionaires take.
- Reducing meat intake isn't just about reducing carbon footprint, more importantly it frees up land to be rehabilitated so we can rebuild forests to absorb emissions.
- The impact of eating meat is way bigger than the few private flights you are talking about, though those obviously shouldnt exist as well.
  
  It’s true that for an average Brit, eating beef 3x a week is worse for the environment in a year than their annual holiday to Greece.
  But billionaires aren’t just taking “a few private flights” they’re taking flights more often than I eat meat in the first place.
  I’ve cut down on meat and my water and electricity usage, I haven’t been on a plane in 10 years. I use the car about once a month. I recycle, reuse, repurpose, I very very rarely buy new things. I’m chronically ill and living in fuel poverty. I’m anaemic ffs. How much more are the poor expected to do when then rich do nothing?
- Stop passing the blame, this isn't a hot potato game when you pass the blame around and nobody actually does anything. Everyone must do their part
- But only one can be immidiatly changed by one self. Except if you have your own plane.

New study shows that the floor is made out of floor
- Imma need sources for that claim...
  
  That better be vegan sauce

My God, just reduce your meat intake and stop being a wuss. This thread is insufferable.
- Business as usual. Climate crisis is everyone's problem but me ! Everyone must make an effort, but not me !
  It's the triangle of inaction. Corporations, government and people blame the two others and use it as an excuse for inaction.
  I can understand it in some cases, but meat consumption ? There is no excuse to not stop or at least reduce meat consumption. It's easy to do, it's cheaper, ... And the impact of everyone not buying meat is insanely positive.
  
  Meat is for me one of the easiest source of protein, and people in general consume already less protein than recommended. :( Many vegan option and/ or protein supplements are expensive. Vegetarian options are okay (eggs, for example) but going 100 percent vegan is difficult.
- For real, I fucking love meat but I only eat it once a week now and it’s not like I’m fucking dying. And it’s not like what I’m eating now tastes bad or anything - lots of rice and beans (Brazilian style, fucking divine), potatoes and other veggies, sometimes a little tofu. It’s fine.
  The world is literally dying and people are whining about hamburgers or whatever. Fucking insane man.

Yes let's shift the blame off massive polluting companies, we should eat veggies and let them warm the earth
- One of the things those massively polluting companies are doing to cause so much environmental harm is rearing meat…
  Turning to veggies would cool the planet. That's the point.
  
  So would eating chicken instead of beef, and you'll get a whole lot more people to agree to that
  
  Exxon knew about climate change since 1971. They continue to make the problem worse to this day. Do you really think if people stop eating meat Exxon is suddenly going to do the right thing and fire everyone? Corporations are going to continue fucking over the environment for their own profit and energy companies (like Exxon) contribute much more CO2 and pollution than eating meat. These rich mult-national corporations are putting out articles to try to get people to place the burden on themselves to distract from their own wrongdoing.

The problem is that, as an overall percentage of annual emissions, agriculture as a whole is only about 11%* of the total, with meat contributing to part of that amount. Similar to individual contributions, while this is an important part of the problem, it's not a big enough part that we should prioritize tackling it compared to other, significantly worse parts.
The bulk of resources should be dedicated to massively lowering energy contributions, which are a whopping 72%* of total emissions, with electricity and heat being ~31% of that amount.
*2013 data, source: https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/#:~:text=Globally%2C%20the%20primary%20sources%20of,72%20percent%20of%20all%20emissions.
- it’s not a big enough part that we should prioritize tackling it compared to other, significantly worse parts.
  The bulk of resources should be dedicated to massively lowering energy contributions
  Yes, but reducing animal products in diets does not require any investments or resources. On large scales, it even frees up resources.
  It's a decision everyone makes three times a day. You can decide against animal products on your plate and still eat a comparably tasty, healthy, affordable meal. No other way to reduce emissions is that easy. Most require upfront investments, construction work, dedication and long term commitment.
- It's big enough to make us miss climate targets on its own. We have to both reduce fossil fuels and meat consumption
  To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
  (emphasis mine)
  https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
- Corporations that have been distracting from their wrongdoing for years, getting rich off destroying the planet, and continue to do so: Hey maybe individuals should switch to vegan diets!

People aren't going to care enough unless its significantly cheaper than meat and equally as much effort for the consumer but a lot of vegan alternatives to meat aren't. It should be cheaper for all of the same reasons that it's more environmentally friendly. Plus why full vegan? It's more likely that people will move in small steps vegetarianism is still an option. We lose so much with the all or nothing approach.
- That's kind of the direction I started going in, veganism for environmental reasons, rather than health or moral/ethical reasons. I've gone about it somewhat slowly, picking different food items to restrict from my diet and looking for non-meat/non-dairy equivalents, mostly just trying to remove any beef or dairy milk from my diet. It seems to have gotten easier in the past few years as other options have opened up.
- Yeah thats a problem I have. I like some plant based meat/dairy alternatives but can't justify paying so much. Meat and dairy should be quite a bit more expensive compared to plant based.
  
  A vegan (or low-meat diet, for that matter) does not equate to substituting meat to processed meat alternatives. Other recipes that do without any fake meat exist.

- Nah, imagine all the crematoriums going full speed at once

Life in prison for the entire board of directors for the top 100 largest polluting corporations would do a lot more I bet.
- This is exactly what the author of the article is trying to distract you from - corporations who caused the problem in the first place want to place the blame on individuals while companies like Exxon got rich making climate change worse even after they knew it was a problem way back in 1971.
  
  I'm shocked!

We've been saying this for year yet people still refuse
- It's just a factor of my quality of life which I'm not willing to compromise on. Surely you also have some of those.

Just completely switching to only eating chicken or a vegetarian diet gets you nearly there. No need to go completely vegan and far easier to do for someone who regularly eats beef.

So does eating the rich. I know which one I'd prefer

Eating local meat also solves this problem.

goes nuclear power does help as long it the nuclear reactor placed anywhere near the area that can earthquake
- The options are greatly expanded now, because new reactors don't need a water source for cooling. They can be built in remote places. For those willing to work with China, that is.

This type of rhetoric is just relieving big industries of their sole responsibility and enabling them. “It’s not my fault that I’m producing it, it’s your fault that you’re buying it” my ass. I won’t do a single shit unless the people that are actually causing this crisis do something.
- In situations where the harm is caused by the industry's approach, I'd agree. But animal products' harm is pretty inextricable, and its production is caused by consumer demand.
  
  But, the harm IS caused by the industry’s approach. People will always demand high caloric and tasty food, there is a way to respond to that ethically and environmentally friendly, and there is shoving thousands of cows in a tiny building, pumping antibiotics and whatever they are doing for the sake of pure profit
  
  One father can aupport 5 sons, 5 sons can not support one father.
  Demanding that we all making good decisions consistently does not work. If we want change it has to be via the government. We can pass regulations that results in less animal harm and less CO2 output.
- In many cases yes, but in this case animal feed simply take up a lot of land and there's no way around it. The only way to free up that land to rehabilitate the environment is it reduce production and that means consuming it less.
- I won’t do a single shit unless the people that are actually causing this crisis do something.
  Companies wouldn't produce stuff but for people buying it. Naturally people who aren't willing to stop buying the product aren't going to do stuff like support legislature that makes it become a lot more expensive and/or difficult to acquire, or even forbidden entirely.
  So it's political suicide for a politician to do something like that: they'll just get voted out. Without regulations forcing companies to adhere to those restrictions, it's basically business suicide to just do something that hamstrings the company's ability to produce whatever product. Their competitors will just eat them.
  I'm not saying companies/the rich don't have responsibility, they absolutely do. I really think that change, for the most part, has to start with the population in general though. I definitely strongly disagree with anyone saying that consumers don't have at least equal responsibility.
  
  Yeah exactly - just look at the protests when fuel prices had a (relatively insignificant to what would be needed) rise in recent years
  A lot of people seem to think that they are free of any responsibility whatsoever and can continue living as if they are not influenced by climate change...
- Ive got a question, would you be cheering if the meat industry took you up on your offer and immediately ceased all production? Or if oil companies stopped providing gasoline? The shipping industry comes to a standstill to avoid exhaust emissions, no more metal mining, natural gas plants are shut down. Does that go well for you?
  
  Of course not? What? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
  
  Not the guy you were asking, but sure, I'm down. We'd be trading some real hard years now to avoid many more much harder years later. It's a good deal.