this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
109 points (98.2% liked)

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

5239 readers
389 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7
109
Australian red meat industry says it doesn’t need to meet its self-imposed net zero target (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 9 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11740609

Prof Mark Howden, the director of the Australian National University Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, said the sector’s net zero target is “effectively not possible”.

“It’s pretty well embedded in the public consciousness that red meat is high profile in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per serve,” Howden said.

“I suspect the industry saw this as a fundamental threat to their future … A few years ago everybody was kind of jumping on the net zero bandwagon without actually thinking through what it actually meant,” he said.

The CSIRO found the industry would fall short of meeting its net zero target, and instead recommended the adoption of a “climate-neutral” target that would require a reduction of methane emissions rather their complete elimination.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Is it 100% optional? Are there no dietary conditions that require eating meat? Even if it is optional, I only said that expecting everyone to change is unrealistic, not that it’s impossible.

What point are you trying to make here? It's ok for people to support the meat industry because an incredibly small fraction of people need meat? How many people do you know that eat meat? And how many do you know actually need meat for medical reasons? And how many of those specifically require eating red meat, by far the worst offender, the most expensive, and still massively consumed?

How much do you expect people to sacrifice? If you give up eating meat can you fly to go on vacation? Or are people expected to give up everything in the name of the climate while billionaires jet around and corporations expell endless emissions?

"Guys, you don't get it! Doing 100% is hard, so why can't people just do 0%?!?" Also, you can criticize people for eating meat and still criticize billionaires on private jets; but nice whataboutism, I guess.

If military operations are required for survival (like eating)

You don't need to eat meat.

“yes we will only defend that military base and we will not kill everyone in the nearby school” and then they go and kill everyone in the school, why wouldn’t they be blamed for not following their orders?

Pray tell, what is the meat industry equivalent of this? You can't not worsen climate change with a meat industry. And before you argue "lab-meat", 1) that also takes a lot of resources currently, and it hasn't been massively adopted so ti's not what people are eating, 2) you know whether you're eating lab-meat. You can't support the meat industry, which you know is responsible for climate change, and then pretend you don't know the consequences. Stop.

But fine, you want another example, think of a hitman. "They only hired the hitman to kill people, they are not morally responsible for the hitman killing people". Except in this case, the hitman is also raising his victims from the ground up and worsening climate change.

You know eating meat, and thereby funding the meat industry, is bad; stop wasting time trying to justify it to yourself and other people and engaging in some kind of double think, and start actually making change for the best.