SLRPNK

1,413 readers
142 users here now

What is Solarpunk?

A SolarPunk Manifesto

Basic Rules:

be constructive: there is no need of another internet space full of competition, negativity, rage etc.;
no bigotry, including racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia or xenophobia;
be empathic: empathy is more rebellious than a middle finger;
no porn and no gore: let's keep this place easy to manage;
no ads / spamming / flooding, we don't want to buy/consume your commodified ideas;
occasional self-promotion by active members is fine.

For any community related question or to just test some function: !meta@slrpnk.net

Try our Photon & Alexandrite frontends.

Or try our lightweight UI and Voyager mobile UI.

All accounts also work with XMPP chat automatically incl. our Movim client.

If you need to jointly brainstorm on your next Solarpunk text, try our Etherpad.

And don't miss our Wiki.

founded 2 years ago

ADMINS

[COP28] climate experts on vegan-driven activism: not viable. What about nixing livestock subsidies? (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by activistPnk to c/vegan

0 comments fedilink

~~(the audio associated to the link will air on BBC World Service again in a couple hours from now [20:00 GMT today], if anyone is on a strained internet uplink)~~ (that’s in the past now)

A panel of climate experts answered questions related to #COP28. Someone asked about the viability of an agenda to get people off animal products. IIRC, the answers basically boiled down to:

An elected politician telling people not to eat meat would be political suicide
Nutrition would be a problem

IMO both answers are accurate. But isn’t there an oversight in terms of subsidies? The US gives huge subsidies to farmers and that includes livestock subsidies (not sure about other countries). A politician would not get away with intervening in people’s diets but canceling livestock subsidies would not be an intervention - it would actually be non-intervention. Would that still necessarily be political suicide?

W.r.t nutrition, someone who works 2 jobs and struggles for a survivable income would not have time/resources to study avoiding malnutrition on a strictly plant-based diet. So if animal products were priced out of the market for poor people, it would cause real problems, no?

Would it make sense to cut the subsidies, let animal product prices skyrocket, but then put the subsidies on the consumer side so overworked underpaid workers could maintain their diets? Apart from that, it seems a bit shitty that vegan taxpayers still finance animal exploitation by simply paying their tax.

Are there any states/countries known to not subsidize animal exploitation, where vegans can be vegan in the most absolute sense?