Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.

https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption

Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-beef-industry-fueling-amazon-rainforest-destruction-deforestation/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-06-02/almost-a-billion-trees-felled-to-feed-appetite-for-brazilian-beef

If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌 🙌

Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. Also, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

  • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    27 minutes ago

    i’ve replaced beef in my diet with kangaroo for exactly this reason… it’s not the same, but it’s great in its own right and contains a load of iron. makes cutting beef out much easier

    bonus: roo populations have to be managed otherwise in modern australia they tend to multiply uncontrolled and it’s a problem, so it’s either eat the meat or waste it… roo meat isn’t farmed

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 hours ago

    What bother’s me about these sorts of posts is they don’t give people a consumption goal. Blindly telling everyone to consume less isn’t exactly fair. Say, for example, there’s person A who consumes 1 unit of red meat per month, and person B who consumes 100 units of red meat per month. If you say to everyone “consume 1 unit of red meat less per month”, well, now person A consumes 0 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 99 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Say, you tell everyone “halve your consumption of red meat per month”, well, now person A consumes 0.5 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 50 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Now, say, you tell everyone “you should try to eat at most 2 units of meat per month”, well now person A may happily stay at 1 unit knowing that they’re already below the target maximum, they may choose to decrease of their own accord, or they may feel validated to increase to 2 units of red meat per month, and person B will feel pressured to dramatically, and (importantly, imo) proportionally, reduce their consumption. Blindly saying that everyone should reduce their consumption in such an even manner disproportionately imparts blame, as there are likely those who are much more in need of reduction than others. It may even be that a very small minority of very large consumers are responsible for the majority of the overall consumption, so the “average” person may not even need to change their diet much, if at all, in order to meet a target maximum.

  • sndmn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    You forgot number one: By far, the best thing you can do for the climate is not have children.

  • blue_skull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I could devote all my time to recycling, reducing carbon emissions, not driving, voting, not eating red meat, including forcing everyone i know to do the same - and the net result would be an iota of a drop in the ocean of change. i.e. nothing.

    As others have said, until there is a global shift on how the world operates and the major oil companies, cruise lines, and airlines all shut down, nothing you or i can do will matter.

    Edit: folks still don’t get it. It’s not a matter of apathy, it’s pragmatism. You will never, ever convince enough people to make a significant change relative to the big consumers. You will be dealing with the people who literally pollute and consume out of spite, and/or principle, or ignorance. For every thing you do, someone’s doing the opposite. We failed the planet a long time ago though lack of education and giving too many greedy people power. The world is too large and the snowball is over the hill.

    The amount of fuel used by the cruise industry in about 1 minute, on average, is more fuel than you or I or any normal person would consume in their entire lifetime, by a lot. That’s on the low end. They consume 500,000 to 1.5 mil gallons an hour. The average person uses maybe 20 to 50k gallons their entire lives. You’d have to convince millions and millions of people to stop driving completely for 40 years to offset that. Tens of millions probably.

    Not gonna happen. That’s just one industry.

    Everyone’s not gonna just stop flying. Or stop driving. Or stop eating meat. It’s idealistic and impossible and frankly imaginary, no matter how much it may be necessary.

    Why waste your time and energy doing things that will do nothing? Focus your efforts elsewhere. Policy change probably has the best chance of helping. But then I point back to the people actively and purposely thwarting any attempts at curbing consumption, and these people are billionaires etc. And at least in the USA, running the country.

  • jaykrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I stopped eating beef about 4 years ago. It was a great decision. I much prefer pork/poultry anyway.

  • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat

    To be fair, only one of these is a choice in many parts of the world.

  • Ileftreddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Until Exxon and BP are no longer in business and global shipping transitions to zero emissions, there is nothing an individual human can do that will have an impact in any way on global climate. They problem is systemic, not individual

  • LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    People will look at an image like this, read that 80% of deforestation in the Amazon happens for cattle, and go “I’m powerless, Exxon is bad” and continue to not only eat meat 5x a day but also actively try to convince other people that reducing their meat consumption is silly and they might as well keep eating it as much as they want because grocery stores will stock it anyway and Elon Musk rides a jet.

  • hobovision@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The metric of per kg of product, while entirely fair, can be a bit misleading when it comes to making high impact decisions in your life. The switching to tea example is a good one to criticize because on this chart coffee is quite high up there, but I consume only 15g of coffee a day, compared to probably close to a kg of meat, egg, and dairy. Eliminating coffee would not be a high climate impact decision.

  • SpaceCheeseWizard@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Coffee is a big one for me along with cheese. I’m waiting for cheese to get better with vegan alternatives, the last time I tried shredded vegan cheese it melted and tasted like plastic, although that was 3 years ago now, and I am willing to try again.

    Coffee is something I think can be helped if people were more picky on what brands they chose from. I do not believe Starbucks is the most sustainable coffee brand, as they trained me when I worked there to believe.