469
submitted 11 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 89 points 11 months ago

Saving the climate is not going to be done by guilting consumers into changing individual consumption habits. Enough with the green consumerist bullshit that only serve as neoliberal justifications for inaction.

If the meat industry is hurting the planet, REGULATE IT.

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 34 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The problem is not that the method that meat is produced, it is that it is produced at high levels at all. The inefficiencies don't go away by changing regulations. We are going to have to have changes in production and thus consumption levels. It's going to be difficult politically to get any policy like that through if people are unwilling to reduce any on there own as well

Do I think systematic actions are needed, yes, but if we're going to get there we'll have to start with some degree of individual action before any of it is paltable to the larger society

[-] Nalivai@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

In order for regulations to stick, they should come from the people. If you try to regulate meat consumption without convincing people that it's good, it will just not stick. It needs to be a consolidated effort, and guilting regular people into better choices is a big part of it

[-] psud@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

Guilting people makes them dig their heels in. Especially when bacon is on the line. There is no good vegan bacon substitute

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

Right because capitalism is bad we should all feel free to never care about our choices

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 12 points 11 months ago

You've got some downvotes ... and there's a pretty strong "don't be obnoxious to people if you want to persuade them to do something" attitude here ... which I generally agree with.

Just to provide my own sentiment here ... at a broad, like "historical" level ... it does bother me that it seems like we've kinda become this coddled culture. Yes, we can be obnoxious about how our choices are better than someone else's bad choices.

But having frank discussions about what choices and actions are good and bad without getting stuck into ego shit fights is not only healthy but I'd argue pretty fundamental. And that includes whether it makes sense for an issue to be elevated to the government/regulatory level ... and then ... how we as the electorate are going effect that (because in the end, leadership from government these days isn't really a thing ... which is also part of the this coddled "make every feel good about themselves" culture I feel).

I recently started calling this something like "secondary climate denial" (which I got from somewhere I can't remember). The idea being that a fair amount of people (myself included I'd say) have acquired a sort of learnt helplessness and passiveness about the climate crisis ... have learnt to deny the possibility of there being things that they can actually do and that are actually worth doing. Sometimes we expect things to be more effective and more quickly than is reasonable, so we do nothing. Sometimes we think the world is too big and powerful for us to move it, so we give up.

Sometimes we get worried about letting perfect be the enemy of good and so we give up. And what have we all got to show for it ... what have we actually done?!

If/when it goes to shit and we're sitting grand-children who are asking us why we didn't stop it from happening and what we actually did ... are we really going to be satisfied that, well, we had some arguments online about it and tried to eat vegan as much as possible? Won't the grand-children then say "I'm vegan too, but what did you do to stop it? Didn't you do anything?"

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 6 points 11 months ago

You can’t even get people to oppose livestock subsidies, and you’re talking about proactive blocks? The action you propose has the least chance of success. Individuals with self-control is the only certain action you can count on.

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You know who opposes livestock subsidies? Cattle ranchers. You know why? Because they pay for most of them.

A lot of people don't realize what's up with the livestock subsidies, and just treat them as a boogeyman. The biggest monsters are usually the feed subsidy and the LIP. The LIP is just like FEMA for food, and it applies to all farms to prevent disasters cutting off our food supply. The feed subsidy, otoh, is truly a monster. It's mostly funded by a tax levied on farmers when they put their livestock up for wholesale. Think of it as an "origination fee" or a VAT tax. For red tape reasons, virtually all of it goes to providing discounted or free feed to a few large corporations. You know, like Tyson.

Ask any farmer who owns a few cows. Killing the feed subsidy would be a massive windfall for local animal agriculture.

Of course, since they're the ones paying for it, people who discover it's not really hitting their own tax dollars stop complaining about it and that's why it never changes.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 6 points 11 months ago

>If the meat industry is hurting the planet, REGULATE IT.

i'd say "attack it". i don't care to ask people in the seats of power to pwease pwease hewp.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -1 points 11 months ago

>Saving the climate is not going to be done by guilting consumers into changing individual consumption habits.

💯

this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
469 points (84.7% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5397 readers
128 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS