this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
77 points (89.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5153 readers
502 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But my book club leader says working within our current means is counterrevolutionary!
It's increasingly a problematic attitude I see among some of the gamer chair leftist groups of Lemmy. That anyone attempting any kind of pragmatism is identified as a liberal reactionary. Any criticism of their particular pet theory within socialism is just counterrevolutionary propaganda.
Imo it's kinda counterproductive considering that leftism is built upon the ideas of mutual cooperation and aid.
This is all missing the point. People are claiming it's carbon free or low emission when it is still substantially higher than other things. The beef industry loves to promote this as if it solves beef emissions. It does not. The emissions are still very much there. If it was touted as a small reduction that would be one thing
You really, really need to read up more on the world of regenerative ag. It's not typically touted as being "zero emissions" or anything like that outside of this op-ed writer's strawman argument.
It's almost entirely sold as a way to avoid having to buy expensive feed and fertilizers through better land management. Do you really think the average farmer gives a fuck about the climate? They have bills to pay. They like that there's sustainability benefits to the practices, don't get me wrong, and and being able to advertise the better practices that went into producing the beef is part the pitch, but this is all about cost-savings and improving product quality almost entirely through thoughtful field rotation and reduced/eliminated tilling.
And it does work. Small farmers who have enough land and patience to adopt these practices can almost entirely eliminate their needs for buying fertilizers and feed. Which I'll remind you, outside of transportation, is the main source of carbon emissions for most farms. Methane from cellulose digestion is another battle that is being waged separately.
Moreover, the more farmers prove that it CAN be done in a financially sustainable way, the easier it becomes to get rid of the worse environmental practices, both on friendly soil and abroad.
Who? The person I responded to was not making that claim.....
No one here is agreeing with the beef industry, they were just specifying that a few countries abstaining from the beef industry would not inherently limit the demand for the beef industry. Meaning that the production of beef would just move to regions with less environmental protections.
My comment was just extrapolating on a personal opinion about modern leftism and how we typically deal with conflicting rationality from within.