Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.

https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption

Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-beef-industry-fueling-amazon-rainforest-destruction-deforestation/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-06-02/almost-a-billion-trees-felled-to-feed-appetite-for-brazilian-beef

If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌

Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

  • renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s the perspective that helped me the most with this:

    You don’t have to quit meat (sorry for the pun) cold turkey.

    Even cutting your meat consumption by half can have a significant impact. Start by ordering a vegetarian option instead of meat every once in a while. Experiment and find veggie alternatives you actually like, there are tons of options now. I heard someone refer to this as “microdosing veganism”, and it can really help make the change less exhausting.

    Over time, you might even notice your tastes start to shift and vegan options become actually enjoyable instead of a “sacrifice”.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      cutting your meat consumption by half can have a significant impact.

      i doubt it. many people have done that, and meat production grows year-over-year every year.

    • Angry_Autist@lemmy.worlddeleted by creator
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you only understood the damage you were doing.

      Rather, I feel you fully understand the damage you are doing and are probably doing it deliberately

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Veganism is good, necessary even, but more than voting we need to actually overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism. Profit will destroy the planet unless we take control of the reigns from capital.

    • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      On a planet where 95-99% of people consume animal products, and still heavily participate in the systems of animal captivity, brutality, and exploitation; can you explain how overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with socialism is going to make a vegan world happen?

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Socialism will not automatically create vegan world, it hasn’t done so anywhere socialism exists. However, it does swap from profits as the end-all, be-all of how society is organized, to one where humanity can better plan production and meet people’s needs. If capital is in the driver’s seat, then the meat industry will continue to perpetuate said brutality and environmental destruction unimpeded. If humanity is in the driver’s seat, then we can actually work against what would be assured in a profit driven model.

        The swap to veganism will never be instant, but it will be largely impossible without human supremacy over capital.

    • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      One thing I never see brought up about the factory farm systems, maybe cause it is a bit of a distraction from animal rights, is that hypothetically these systems are turnkey human genocide infrastructure. It is infrastructure for a sort of perpetual animal, uh… regenocide? afterall.

      Seems outlandish and unthinkable, maybe. But then again, all bets are off with the current administration in the US.

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Given the amount of perpetual torture these very-likely-to-be-sentient creatures go through, it’s certainly worse than any genocide in history has ever been. Even if you only think that animals are capable of 5% of the suffering of humans.

  • piyuv@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    How much less red meat to offset all the private jet that flew to Venice for bezos’ wedding?

    • 0x0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t go pointing at the obvious now. It’s not them, it’s you! Do your recycling, stop yapping about jets… /s

  • skisnow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    perfect is the enemy of good.

    I wish vegans and vegetarians would be a bit more willing to promote this viewpoint. It’s insane how many otherwise normal people will refuse a single meat-free meal for no reason other than identity politics.

  • bigbabybilly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. The SINGLE best think you can do for the planet is not reproduce. Then something about not eating red meat and international travel. But the planet HATES your 5 kid family.

    • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So I wanted to have 9 kids but ended up finishing out at 3. So technically a savings of 6 kids! I’m helping the environment!

      Being pedantic a nebulous “having one fewer kid” means nothing unless there’s a benchmark. I think they mean “having one fewer kid as a country average” so if the average Canadian has 1.26 children per women we want to see it .26 per women.

      On an individual level I can’t unalive a child.

    • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The methodology here is kinda bs IMO.

      They’re adding up the emissions of the descendants and dividing that by a parents life expectancy.

      However, if a society achieves net 0, then surely the emissions of every person there in are 0, so it’s disingenuous to count them at today’s rates.

      Its an attempt to illustrate the environmental cost of over-population, but it needs to be considered within the context of that methodology.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        OK, if society achieves net zero, you can have as many children as you like.

        But given that it’s been going up since the industrial revolution, and it’s still going up, it seems rather fanciful to suggest that it’s within our grasp.

        A number of countries have reduced emissions massively, but realistically that mostly means “we’ve moved all our emissions to China”. I could buy green energy from my supplier, but for me that was still coming from a big coal power station a few miles up the road until last year when they finally closed it.

        And frankly, if corporations can count the carbon a tree will capture over 30 years and somehow “offset” that against a dirty great factory when they hurl a few pennies at a third world farmer, then we can count the carbon our descendents will emit over that time as well.

  • ToasterOven@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Crap. I’m going to have to eat twice as much steak now to try and make up for you all. Steak every meal.