255 grams/week of pork or poultry
#savedyouaclick
255 grams/week of pork or poultry
#savedyouaclick
Well, that's what I am eating per day. Unless I am having a big, nice juicy steak 😁
So... you're the reason for the climate apocalypse?
Definitely, we are all going to die because of my gluttony. And don't let me start talking about beer consumption.
The real problem is that people like you are proud and joke about what should be a serious topic.
In case anyone else didn't automatically know that means 255g/week:
In March 2025, researchers from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) found that to eat sustainably, individuals should consume no more than 255 grams — or about half a pound — of pork or poultry per week. The study also makes clear that beef, lamb and other red meats are not compatible with a sustainable future under current environmental constraints.
"How much can you litter to keep the streets clean?" This is essentially the same. Makes it kind of obvious that the answer is 0, you shouldn't litter if you want the streets to be clean. Now if you littered a little bit would it neccessarily make the street so filthy that you wouldn't consider it clean anymore? Maybe not, but it objectively would not be clean.
You shouldn't eat meat if you care about the environment, that simple. But you could make the same argument about cars or planes or quite a few other things we all use. But meat is also murder so maybe don't contribute to it because of that as well?
On the other hand, reducing meat consumption by 90% is a LOT easier than reducing car travel by 90% for a lot of people who don't work from home or live near work.
That is true, diet change is not easy to start with, but it is doable for the average person and gets easy after a few weeks to months, while excluding fossil fuels from your life is almost completely incompatible with modern countries and in some even impossible (water pumps and electric generators from your local government often uses fossil fuels and it's close to impossible to go that "off the grid")
What you say doesn't apply to hunting.
what you say doesnt apply to 99% of the anglosphere this article will reach
The climate part doesn't but hunting is the source for about less than 1% of the meat in the world, so your comment is really out of the context of this post.
And the moral part applies to hunting in modern countries, as well.
Morality really doesn't come into it at all.
Into what?
!usa@ponder.cat