235

Meat is a leading emissions source – but few outlets report on it, analysis finds (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by solo@piefed.social to c/climate@slrpnk.net

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 10 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Yeah, because for the majority of the public it's a lost cause.

I haven't eaten meat in so long and I sincerely don't miss it but anytime I mention it to my friends it's unconscionable. I wasn't even pitching for them to be a vegetarian, I was pitching for them to eat smaller portions.

I brought up that we should stop subsidizing red meat so heavily so we can subsidize healthier foods, I might as well have been Judas himself.

The meat industry propaganda runs deep.

[-] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 12 hours ago

Animal farming is a waste of farmland, just grow human food directly without the mass murder and extreme inefficiency

[-] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

It's strange how that same site, in a different article with the same author, lists a very different number of 18.4% for all Agriculture, of which livestock and manure makes up just 6%:

https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector

I suppose the difference depends on how things are defined and categorized.

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago

That is misunderstanding the graph. That's only counting direct emissions. Feed production is a major source of emissions for animal agriculture

From the article:

“Livestock” emissions here include direct emissions from livestock only — they do not consider impacts of land use change for pasture or animal feed.

[-] xep@discuss.online 10 points 1 day ago

If you look at the source of the data for emissions it's unclear that it's all from meat production: https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food

Even if we take at face value that meat accounts for 60% of industrial agriculture emissions, as a proportion of total emissions that is still only 0.6 * 26% = ~16%. It's sizable, but perhaps we should be addressing the elephants in the room, in the "non-food" section, first.

[-] quick_snail@feddit.nl 7 points 14 hours ago

We need both

[-] stickly@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

The other emissions are providing necessary value and not strictly producing what amounts to a luxury product. Cars move people, clothes need to be made, resources need to be shipped across the globe, etc... Yeah you can have deeper discussions about how to trim them down but that's a clean, easy 16% that could be won basically tomorrow.

[-] xep@discuss.online 3 points 23 hours ago

Do you think say perhaps AI emissions are less of a luxury product than food?

[-] stickly@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

As wasteful as our AI usage is it still has a function that couldn't be substituted. There's no other tool that could be used for, say, a certain subset of public health analysis or massive archival projects or image analysis.

Granted if we were using it in only those cases we'd need a fraction of the capacity. But the emissions we'd cut are much, much smaller than the savings from the meat industry. Last I checked all US datacenters (not just AI) were less than 3% of emissions. Building and running a computer isn't as disruptive as constantly moving millions of tons of meat + feed + equipment and minutae.

Commercial meat is a luxury because it can be entirely replaced by other calories + nutrients + supplements. And this is just a discussion on emissions but the other benefits of going meatless are just as notable (eg: agriculture is the #1 cause of ecosystem collapse; large public health benefits)

[-] xep@discuss.online 4 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Commercial meat is a luxury

This is a take I've never heard before, it's not how I think luxury goods are defined, and I'm now genuinely curious as to what you consider a luxury product. Do you think that eating some chicken is the same as wearing a Hermes handbag, or driving a Lamborghini?

because it can be entirely replaced by other calories + nutrients + supplements.

This reads to me like it cannot be replaced without supplementation, which seems to be a critical flaw for people who are unable to supplement. I'm also of the opinion that calories are not a useful measure for nutrition, since our bodies are not bomb calorimeters.

[-] stickly@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

A luxury is something pleasant or enjoyable but not strictly necessary. It's not a matter of how much more enjoyable it is but just that it can be functionally replaced (Lambo -> Toyota Corolla; Designer bag -> any other bag; Meat -> Plant proteins). Unless there's some rare medical condition that prevents eating anything but animal proteins, we have the means to replace it (as a massive commercial industry at the very least).

WRT alternative diets it really depends on what you replace it with. I believe there are technically some entirely vegan diets without supplements but if you're buying your meat from the store you could just as easily buy supplements from the same place and not worry about it.

I went meatless recently and even as an unabashed meat lover it really wasn't that bad. Vegan/vegetarian meat substitutes have advanced a ton in the past few years when I do get the craving, but I don't notice a day-to-day difference. The main annoyances have been limited restaurant menus and rebuilding my recipe catalog.

[-] xep@discuss.online 3 points 12 hours ago

I see, so your definition of luxury good is "something that can be functionally replaced." I was thinking of the economic definition.

I don't think meat to be functionally replaceable with plant proteins. Heme-iron alone makes it very difficult to do, since iron from plants is far less bioavailable. What does a vegan diet do for Vitamin B12? Conspicuous consumption is not necessary for survival, but B12 very much is.

I don’t notice a day-to-day difference.

Changes from nutrition can take a long time to become manifest. I wish you longevity and good health.

[-] stickly@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

IIRC there is exactly one variety of lentil that can supply B12, but otherwise it's mass produced via bacteria fermentation. At a certain age, most doctors recommend a daily vitamin supplement anyway so it's really a matter checking a few labels before you pick one to make sure your multivitamin matches your meatless diet.

I appreciate the well wishes, my doctor is already much happier with my visits 😂

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Vegans often supplement harder to obtain nutrients, B12 and bioavailable Iron is very cheap and easily obtained, so it's usually not an issue.

[-] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 12 hours ago

The problematic nutrients are B12, D and Omega-3.

Food specifically for vegans such as plant milk is usually fortified with B12 and D. Vitamin D can also be gotten by touching grass. Linseed is a good Omega-3 source.

[-] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 12 hours ago

To quote my own comment on this post:

Animal farming is a waste of farmland, just grow human food directly without the mass murder and extreme inefficiency

[-] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 day ago

Beef industry groups take an active approach to messaging, including staffing a 24/7 “command center” in Denver that scans social media for negative stories and deploys counter-messaging.

Damn, as if watching out for Russia bots and Israel bots wasn't enough now we gotta watch out for beef bots.

[-] x00z@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

The meat and dairy industry has been fighting this fight for a long ass time now.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 15 points 1 day ago

People are emotionally invested in meat and that often shuts down any conversation

[-] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Meat has been associated with masculinity in Western culture for several centuries now. For some men it's a solid 30 to 40% of their personality and some patriarchy embracing woman buy into it too. It would be a really tough sell in these nations that also have the historically highest cumulative contribution to carbon emmisions.

[-] skisnow@lemmy.ca 3 points 12 hours ago

The most obnoxiously sanctimonious vegan I've ever met, wasn't half as big a dickhead as the average "I'm a carnivore, I must have meat in every meal" manchild.

[-] ValarieLenin@midwest.social 11 points 1 day ago

Meatless Mondays is a good start if you were raised on meat and don't have a clue what veg's eat. My partner and I are almost 90% vegetarian and we are both drastically healthier than what we were before.

[-] bss03@infosec.pub 4 points 1 day ago

I've gotten to 42% vegan, 42% lacto-vegetarian, and 14% omnivore, but I can and should do better.

But, I don't think individual action is the "right" solve for this. I think we have to cap emissions by regulation. We could do cap and trade if will had really good measures for removal and capture, but we can't depend on self-reporting for that.

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 3 points 14 hours ago

The problem is that it's incredibly difficult, if not effectively impossible, to actually get those regulations proposed and passed due to how much profit there is for the food corporations, who have bottomless pockets to lobby against those things passing. Collective action by reducing our own consumption is a way to overcome that issue, if done on a wide enough scale.

[-] jaykrown@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Yea and whenever I bring it up people get offended, specifically beef.

[-] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 4 points 20 hours ago

It's weird how it's linked to being manly and how it's "tradition"

So manly how you picked the factory meat from the freezer in the super market. Only a real man could. Tradition, sure, but ask your grandpa how often they would and could afford meat.

[-] jaykrown@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago

I'm glad it's getting more expensive, we've ignored the external costs for way too long.

[-] solo@piefed.social 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

About this article, one thing that I don't like is that once more the focus is on personal decisions. This shifts the focus from a systemic problem to personal problem. It's the industry that dictates regulations and policies through lobbying. Let's keep our eyes on the goal.

Edit: Of course boycotting the industry would be a great solution, and this doesn't even mean that someone needs to be vegan, or that they are loaded wth money. Or even avoiding bying these products would be great. Still, the most important thing imo is that industries stop doing what they do.

[-] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 day ago

Agree but nothing will change until personal choices also change. You can't magically fix the emissions and deforestation of beef, and beef consumption continues to rise. You have to stop consuming beef.

[-] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I mean that's sort of the point of the article. Stopping climate change is going to require both systemic and personal change. Media likes to focus on the systemic parts:

mining, manufacturing, and energy production (55.9%); fossil fuels (47.9%); and transportation (34%)

And ignore the personal parts because people don't like to be told "this thing that brings you joy is killing the planet" and are more open to the idea that it's all just the big corporations faults and if we could just control/regulate them we can have a sustainable future without having to change our lifestyle.

We are going to have to change our lifestyle though and meat consumption is going to be a big part of that change. It's also a personal choice, it's not like cars where the system is basically forcing you to drive. You can become vegan or vegetarian tomorrow and the only cost would be to your taste. Sure there are some subsidies nudging you towards consuming meat, but rice and beans is still the cheapest diet there is and no amount of beef subsidies will make a burger the cheaper option.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025

235 points (95.7% liked)

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

7393 readers

718 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:

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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net