Then it won't have been futile.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
We're pretty much screwed (but not extinct) at this point no matter what, but going vegan doesn't matter nearly as much as living in a smaller house (i.e. less concrete), or driving and flying less.
I mostly avoid beef and dairy, which are the main diet-based causes of global warming, but beyond that it's a rounding error.
I'm sorry but no. Your diet is a personal choice and no amount of shaming is going to change that.
Do you travel internationally? Own a car? Do any other of a million things that have an impact on the climate but also constitute living your life?
It's great to put this information out there but telling people that your choices are "simply the right thing to do at this point" is incredibly condescending and will likely have the opposite impact you want it to have since no one likes to be preached at.
Unless you're suggesting forcing people by law to be vegan, then it most definitely is a personal choice.
> I realize this is a message people don't want to hear, but I believe they need to hear it.
It's precisely that attitude that ensures no one will ever listen to what you have to say.
Was it your personal choice to cut down rain forest to raise beef cattle, or palm oil? What about air freighting in fruit and veg that common sense says comes on a ship? No?
Your diet is small part personal choice, within the far larger part played by cultural mores and market-led financial choices imposed by producers and supermarkets. You can't escape the part played by billions on advertising, and the choices of restaurants and supermarkets that led to your "personal choice".
"The market" is not going to phase out ecologically reckless methods unless people stop buying. Yet how can they when that detail, very intentionally, never appears on the label, and 365 day availability ensures almost no one remembers when things are in season any more?
So much for personal choice.
Reduce, reuse, recycle - if you do it, good! If you don't, bad! Travel less, don't own anything.
How can we frame these sorts of ideals so that people don't feel attacked?
There _is_ a climate crisis. At least some level of that crisis is driven by consumer demands. We should be able to advocate a change without people feeling like they're being shamed.
Precisely. As another example, when people claim that progress pics are "fatshaming", it's pretty obvious that the problem isn't with the information or how it's presented, it's with the person feeling ashamed, which they rightfully are. These people should self-reflect upon why they feel ashamed instead of throwing a tantrum and playing the victim.
Not any more
> and no amount of shaming is going to change that.
It did change it for me. I haven’t gone vegan all the way but I did change my diet
> Do you travel internationally?
Less and less and preferably by train
> Own a car?
Yes, and I stopped driving it.
> since no one likes to be preached at.
I must be an exception then.
You seem more concerned about not being condescended to; for such an individual, what language would you find cogent?
With that said, I'm curious why you don't want anyone trying to convince you to change your mind?
I don't want to eat meat, and I don't plan to, but if someone had some reasoned arguments as to why I should, I'd listen and decide for myself. I'm not you though, but I am curious what reason(s) you have for not being open to discussing it. I'm also curious why you phrased it as someone telling you to do it, rather than discussing it.
Think of it like pushy religious advocates. If they come to your door once and knock and you tell them to go way, that's mildly annoying but understandable. If they keep coming back every day saying that you "must" debate them, then that starts to get really annoying, really fast.
If public shaming and social clout isn't involved, no one will.
Climate change is already displacing tens of thousands of people every year to floods, forest fires, and arid land. It's going to get worse before anything we do today to survive has an effect.
I think the thousands of scientists studying this phenomenon already understand the impact of human civilization on Earth rather well.
There's "climate is changing" and massive population migration, uninhabitable areas, unreliable food and water supply, sea level threatening entire cities and probably more.
The fact that "literally everything we do" impact the environment isn't a valid argument. It does seem daunting, but by looking at each cause individually and acting on it, it looks less discouraging.
I'm far from perfect, I'm not even vegan and I still fly quite a bit, I just came to understand I had to make progressive changes to my behaviour or the human existence we currently have is severely threatened,
Gw is unsolvable without better technology, or facism.
I guess that depends on how you define personal choice. Climate change has certain changed the calculus, but diet was never merely a personal choice when it required the death of other individuals.
As for the shaming, I'm not in favor of that because it does not seem to be an effective way of bringing about change. But simply having these kinds of discussions cannot fairly be called shaming. That's a cop-out to avoid meaningful discourse.
For now, it’s hard to say with confidence that grass-fed beef is consistently more climate-friendly than conventional beef."
Various diets are worth trying -- you never know until you try, and you learn a lot by trying. So for readers out there, try being vegan for a month: you'll learn a lot about what you eat and how to cook and you can observe how you feel.
Also worth noting: many traditional cultures embedded food restrictions into calendars and/or religious rules. Being vegan for a while before Easter is more or less a thing in some Christian groups; Ramadan involves fasting as a practice. These cultural practices, combined with the seasons in nature, make me wonder if we were built to be cyclically vegan/omnivore/berry-eater. This may be more sustainable for many.
My belief is that our biology is complex and specific to each individual to the point where we can't all share the same diet and expect the same effects on our bodies.
There can be a problem with reducing fat and protein significantly while using carbs for the majority of caloric intake. This can lead to diabetes. But you can do this on an omnivore diet as well.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
It's not the largest contributor, for sure. But it's sizable.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-06466-8
Reducing meat intake _does_ sizably reduce overall emissions.
Honestly the links between diet and health are always thin at best, but I don't know of any that strongly link a well-balanced vegan diet with reduced health. Usually, the opposite.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/89/5/1627S/4596952
> "In general, vegetarians typically enjoy a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers [...]"
The co2 emissions from cows aren't the problem. Factory farming yes is a problem, but if cows are put on grass that grass is a co2 sink and gives off far less.
If you grow an acre of soy it's just as bad as it isn't sustainable.
Also the fact that being vegan has serious health consequences and animals provide far more nutrition.
The answer isn't going vegan at all but to have sustainable farming practices where animals and plants are grown together in a regenerative process.
Grass is one of the best crops to grow. It's a great carbon sink, and takes away methane. Builds its own fertility so no need for artificial fertilizers. No management, machines, pesticides etc. Grows everywhere. We just can't eat it. But ruminants (like cows/sheep/etc) can. They have a digestive system for it. They turn grass into meat and milk. Meat and milk that don't need storage until you need to harvest it. It also tastes better.
We used to have far loads more bison roaming the earth. But they didn't cause climate change because they ate grass. When you factor in the grass it's a net positive and not a negative like the article claims.
These studies like to look at things in a bubble, but the problem is far more complex than that.
Converting pasture to arable land to grow more plant based food will make the climate situation worse. You will reduce these carbon/methane sinks. You will need to fertilize and harvest the soil. Fetalization itself reduces the carbon/methane sink capabilities.
Eating beef can actually be a very sustainable option. In many cases, pasture-reared beef actually shows a carbon-equivalent net gain when carbon sequestration is taken into account.
Edit: Perhaps a comment or 2 would be nice on why people don't agree or why I might be wrong. Happy to read up and learn
Follow the links, Monsanto has deep connection to the University of Oxford, at least £50 million pounds. UO professors routinely get consulting fees from Monsanto. They even have a Monsanto Senior Research Fellowship position.
There is a massive conflict of interest with Monsanto and the University of Oxford. You find this with most food and nutrition science. Since the funding for such sciences comes from the industry, any science that is critical of it's paymasters soon gets silenced.
This article outlines a bit more https://medium.com/@johnroulac/oxford-study-attacks-regenera...