this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
341 points (87.8% liked)

Science

13257 readers
19 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ElcaineVolta@kbin.social 74 points 1 year ago

"veganism will not fix all of humanity's problems, but no solution will be complete without it."

[–] lankybiker@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago (16 children)

It's an article about environmental impact

"The impacts of vegans were a quarter of those of high meat eaters for greenhouse gas emissions, and land use, just 27% of the impacts for water pollution, 46% for water use and 34% for biodiversity. "

But let's be honest, you probably dont care, no one seems to care. People who do care are unusual and caring and taking action is unusual and might even earn you derision.

Personally I'm still trying to figure out whether there's any point in trying to change anyone's mind. I have a feeling it's a hopeless waste of energy, which is terrible. If the people do do care lose all will to try to encourage others to see what seems obvious then nothing will get better, it will probably get worse.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't think convincing average people to go 100% full vegan is a good strategy. What I would focus on is convincing people to eat less meat, eggs, dairy, etc. It can be a gradual process to even further reduction, or even just a permanent flat reduction is still an improvement.

Convincing two people to reduce their animal consumption by 50% is as good as convincing one person to go full vegan.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

i think ed winters has changed his focus from moralizing and guilt-tripping and is now actively trying to make vegan foods more available/accessible. so i don't even think you need to talk about meat at all: just offer people food that happens to be vegan. and i don't mean trick them into eating a soyburger: just make food that is naturally vegan and tastey and then that's the meal someone has eaten instead of a meaty one.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To add to this, a good dish that's inherently vegan is always going to be better than a meat-based dish with the meat replaced.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] darq@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I think a solution is going to be less about changing minds, and more about changing incentives.

Meat-free food should be cheaper and easier. Walking into a supermarket or convenience store, one should be greeted with affordable, tasty, plant-based meals. The more affordable and accessible we make plant-based meals, the more people are going to eat them. And showing people that they can taste just as good as meat-based meals, will mean people won't immediately steer clear of them.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Of course this is just one anecdote, but I stopped eating meat for the climate, because of the numbers. People posting papers, making informative comments (like your first half) changed my mind.

[–] FreeLunch@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago

Same, it’s one of the good things that I got from being on Reddit/Feddit.

[–] lankybiker@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

That's encouraging

[–] czech@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I don't think you can change many minds. It would be more effective to make factory farming illegal so that meat prices increase dramatically. People will eat less meat when they can't afford not to.

[–] lankybiker@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Again, factory farming seems so, totally, horrific it's obvious that it should be consigned to history.

But feeling that way is something that only a tiny minority of people seem to share. Most people just don't care.

People love meat and are willing to totally ignore the suffering behind it. Never mind environmental impacts. .

[–] Gawanoh@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

Animal products were and should be again luxury products.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] penguin@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No individual average person can do anything of significance to fight climate change or have a meaningful impact on the global environment. Only governments or massive organizations can.

If you could do an alternate reality type thing, where one version of you lives a perfect life, environmentally speaking, and the other version lives the worst, the world would be the same at the end of both.

[–] Vegoon@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Its not about one person preventing climate change alone, first step is not supporting climate change. Then people around you see that it's not black magic and that they can do it too. We are now at 2%, 3%? vegans. A change in society needs 10% to have a critical mass. If you decide to go vegan, for the animals, for the climate, for your health, and make others think about and maybe even change one other persons view you did better than most.

If you don't you are not passive, you are actively supporting it and showing others that its OK.

  • Eating meat is actively supporting the industry and everything that comes with it.

  • Silently not supporting it with a plant based diet is the passive position.

  • Actively fighting against it is the real fight against the industry.

Governments will not act against the will of the voters alone. They have to have some support to even consider making change. Massive organizations live from the participation from people, from you.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] PolyLlamaRous@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No shit? Is this not obvious and generally understood?

[–] poudlardo@jlai.lu 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No, I think you're in a bubble if you think that

[–] PolyLlamaRous@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Ohhh I most definitely am in a bubble. But it's also just common sense. You have to produce plant food, then ship the food to cows for them to eat and grow then to be killed and eaten. And it's not like you put 60 kilos in and you get 60 kilos of meat. Just look at yourself for an example. So it's only natural that if you simply feed the plants to the humans it would be better in every way. People should know this shit mate.

I asked how bad this really is: to produce one kilogram of beef requires 25 kilograms of grain – to feed the animal – and roughly 15,000 litres of water

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] blazera@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Yeah but people will continue to be misinformed about dietary protein, and think eating fruits and vegetables is for wusses.

[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (5 children)

My dad is old and fat and is out of breath when he gets into a car. He eats cheap sometimes spoiled meat 3 times a day, everything he cooks is somehow the greasiest food i have ever seen.
I have a BMI of 21. I do an average of 18000 steps a day and mountain bike on the weekend.

Somehow he's embarrassed about my vegan diet and gives me tips on how to eat right and tells me that i'm godda die soon for the past 5 years.
I have many friends like that. Bro, i need that protein. You are overweight and you don't do any sports at all.
I dunno, i find it very odd.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From what I've seen its often just genuine ignorance. Thinking plants are entirely carbs, needing protein for muscle so of course you only get protein from animal muscle, and that old myth of incomplete proteins. Ill be honest I had the same assumption that something like a potato is entirely carbs

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It is amazing how the focus shift from blaming gas and oil industries and focus on food. Blaming individuals, with a sub message ( you are the reason for climate change because you buy animal products) while big corporations and their investors, and ceos continue enjoying their massive wealth.

Disclaimer, didn't read the article but the title it triggering..

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why we can't ignore the meat industry's climate impact

We also need to address fossil fuels, but the meat industry is large enough in emissions to make us miss climate targets even if fossil fuels were eliminated today

To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

(emphasis mine)

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

There's not really a way around consumption being reduced. It's going to be hard to implement any systematic solutions to reducing meat consumption if people don't take that step themselves too


The environment is more than just greenhouse gases emissions

But I should also point out that there's more to the environment than just climate change which is why I would suggest at least skimming things before commenting for the future. The article and even its title ("across a range of environmental measures") include much more than just greenhouse gas emissions.

on the environmental impact of their diets was assessed in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, water pollution risk and biodiversity loss.

[...]

The impacts of vegans were a quarter of those of high meat eaters for greenhouse gas emissions, and land use, just 27% of the impacts for water pollution, 46% for water use and 34% for biodiversity.


Other studies and environmental metrics

Why best case production of animal products still come out worse than worse-case production of plants

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

Many argue that this overlooks the large variation in the footprints of foods across the world. Using global averages might give us a misleading picture for some parts of the world or some producers. If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

[…]

Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

Deforestation

Extensive cattle ranching is the number one culprit of deforestation in virtually every Amazon country, and it accounts for 80% of current deforestation

https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/amazon_threats/unsustainable_cattle_ranching/

Draining desert's water

Correspondingly, our hydrologic modelling reveals that cattle-feed irrigation is the leading driver of flow depletion in one-third of all western US sub-watersheds; cattle-feed irrigation accounts for an average of 75% of all consumptive use in these 369 sub-watersheds. During drought years (that is, the driest 10% of years), more than one-quarter of all rivers in the western US are depleted by more than 75% during summer months (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. 2) and cattle-feed irrigation is the largest water use in more than half of these heavily depleted rivers

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=wffdocs

Biodiversity loss

Livestock farmers often claim that their grazing systems “mimic nature”. If so, the mimicry is a crude caricature. A review of evidence from over 100 studies found that when livestock are removed from the land, the abundance and diversity of almost all groups of wild animals increases

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/16/most-damaging-farm-products-organic-pasture-fed-beef-lamb

Increased synthetic fertilizer usage for animal products

Thus, shifting from animal to plant sources of protein can substantially reduce fertilizer requirements, even with maximal use of animal manure

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344922006528

Etc.

There's a number more but this comment is already getting too long

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago

One can fight oil and gas on a plant based diet just as well.

This is a simple choice each individual makes three times a day, what to eat.

Doesn't need political approval, doesn't need majorities, no investment and no infrastructure required. If you understand how serious the climate crisis is, eating plant based should come as a no brainer. And if you understand, you won't stop there.

It's still a systemic crisis which cannot be solved on the individual level, true. In an ideal world, plant based diets would become the norm through various means. But why wait for that if you understand it's the right thing to do?

[–] davepleasebehave@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

industry serves people's demands. it's one way to influence agri industry.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bipta@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're upset because you don't want to accept your piece of the pie when it comes to responsibility. This is childish.

The title should trigger you, but not too be upset with billionaires; although certainly you can be upset with them for their much larger pieces of the pie.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ElvenMithril@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 year ago

Yay,vegans role! 🌳💚

[–] PlantbasedChe@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why should humans be cruel without necessity?

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because tradition: see war, crime, reality TV

The only way to win this is with affordable traditional vegan options (the stuff our grandparents used to eat, but didn't call vegan), but with lettuce at the same price as pork and vegan cheese that is 50% fat and triple the price, most people who can't soak their own beans, many can't or have time to even cook, this is not going to work.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] De_Narm@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

As is tradition, a paper proofs something that should be common sense and as is tradition too, it will likely be ignored. It's a sad world to live in.

[–] kalipike@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Jeez what a title. I bet most folks read the title and assume it means better for health reasons not environmental reasons.

[–] Shikadi@beehaw.org 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It says environmental in the title?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] darq@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Good thing both of those conclusions are true.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm in my 40s and the "rah rah steak!" Folks are dying from cancer and illness. I had to reduce my meat intake.

My tin foil hat believes the lax US laws on meat means it's being pumped with some serious bad shit to keep meat prices from being so high compared to other countries. Not to mention our general health (and lack of affordable healthcare) means many more folks are succumbing to these illnesses.

[–] Dreyns@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

The bad shit is the way cater is raised in the US. In france an exploitation with let's say 200 beast is considered big. In the us some count thousands... There are reaaly big one in europe but it's a minority compared to the us. This is atrocious and I really hope we all reduce our meat intake.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›