Why eating less meat is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019

> I think they could just as easily have titled it "Why having no children is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019" but I guess that didn't fit the anti-meat agenda.

To follow that line of logic to its ultimate conclusion: "committing suicide is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019."

I'm really not a fan of the misanthropic philosophy around many of the proposed solutions. Not only is it, you know, anti-people.... Not only is it unnecessary considering the role than innovation and adaption can play... ...but it's also a complete dead-end politically. And there's no way we can fight climate change effectively without political support.

Forcing people to decide between say, kids or pets on the one hand and fighting climate change on the other, most people are going to choose their kids or pets every time. So making that kind of argument is highly counter-productive.

> anti-meat agenda

I hate when people say that people with a valid viewpoint/lifestyle (vegetarianism, homosexuality, atheism) has an "agenda", it's disingenuous and biasing. Attack the methods and conclusions of the article, you're getting pretty close to ad-hominem.

> This is a multi-factored problem with numerous areas which can be addressed to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

So why do you immediately throw out "eating less meat" as one way to reduce some emissions? I'm not saying it's a big part, but it's pretty easy to not eat as much meat. I am a meat eater, but I don't understand why every other meat eater has to treat vegans/vegetarians like they want to take away your ability to breath oxygen.

One should also note that a vegetarian diet may not be optimal for your individual health profile. People with colitis, diversticulitis, chron's disease / IBS or other allergies might not do well on a high fiber diet. In other words, there's a lot of debate still about which diets are optimal for humans. Clearly there's a spectrum, but a vegetarian diet or a vegan diet may not be the most healthy diet for a given individual.

For comparison, my electric company, Puget Sound Energy, has a thing called the Green Power Program. You can pay extra on your bill and that somehow pays for renewable power to be added to the grid, offsetting your carbon footprint [1].

For $4/month, they say it will reduce my carbon footprint by 5328 lbs CO2/year. $6/month give 7991 lbs CO2/year. It looks like it goes up linearly.

My guess is that convincing the average person to pay $4/month will be a lot easier than convincing them to give up meat, and it has a bigger impact.

[1] https://www.pse.com/green-options/Renewable-Energy-Programs/...

In New York City, there is an ad campaign about not wasting food.

One tag line is "Wasting one egg wastes 55 gallons of water".

And even if americans ate 0 food whatsoever, our greenhouse gas production would drop about 10%. Diet is not a low hanging fruit in this fight. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

I'm not familiar with this chef, but if somone is a "carnivore" that typically means that meat/fish/eggs compose most if not all of their diet. That's an extreme diet.

At least in the US, the percentage of calories of a typical diet is 70% plant-based (including nut/vegetable oils) vs 30% animal, and I believe red meat has been on the decline for years, whereas consumption of chicken has risen.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-at...

> Everyone agrees factory farming sucks

Not enough to change their diet though.

> why not push sustainable agriculture instead

Because factory farming _is_ the most environmentally sustainable form of animal agriculture. Environmental sustainability and animal welfare are in competition with each other, to give to one you have to take from the other, so the obvious choice is to simply reduce animal agriculture.

Any organized reforms requires enough of the population to agree to substantial lifestyle changes and sacrifice, and that starts at the individual level. How do we expect people to agree to reduce meat consumption, or fly/drive less, or just consume less if we don't get enough of them to actually do it willingly?

Green technologies and innovations will certainly help but I'm not happy just waiting for some breakthrough and throwing money at it in the meantime. Arguing that individuals can't make any meaningful difference is also a cop out - if my small sacrifice won't help, then why bother? This seems like a terrible perspective.

> Individual action is merely pandering to the laziness and timidity of those who find it easier to stop eating delicious foods entirely than to have a conversation with someone who disagrees with them about politics.

What makes you think this is a lazy and timid group? It's also worth pointing out that many (maybe most?) who choose to forgo meat do it primarily for ethical reasons.

To echo jly's argument, at least in the US, we expect a politician or political activist's personal behavior to be consistent with their political advocacy.

Advocating for personal responsibility for the climate is synergetic with societal advocacy: it raises awareness and buy-in among grassroots, and those behaving in a personally responsible manner have greater legitimacy in their public advocacy.