The only viable method is lab grown meat that tastes exactly the same, same texture, and is cheaper. That's it. People have real stuff in their lives - they're not worried about planetary survival in 100 years, they're worried about next months rent, etc.
I suspect it's true that the only way to substantially cut animal-based protein consumption at scale is some technological alternative that offers a comparable culinary experience but with a lower cost (and lower impact). Although as another poster notes, it's also true that — like many resource consumption issues — the distribution isn't flat, but shows the majority of consumption coming from a relatively small fraction of the population.
However, what I wanted to point out is that "lab grown meat" is not the only possibility in this general area. Precision fermentation of proteins (e.g. https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-fermentation/) is another approach that seems to have potential. Although I note that I don't have a specific horse in this race, and would be delighted to see anything that can reduce the overall environmental impact of food production at a global scale take off.
If you are actually worried about next month's rent, then going mostly vegetarian is FAR cheaper than eating beef
Plus, only 12% of the people eat 50% of the beef in the US. That is a group of 50-65 year-old men. Change their habits to match the normal population (or let them age out) and 50% of the problem disappears.
[0] https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-sig...
We're using up resources at a pace that outstrips Earth's ability to replenish them. For instance, we're already consuming 1.7 times the Earth's available resources.
If everyone were to adopt a diet similar to the American diet, we would require more than five Earths to sustain it.
https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability...
> The only viable method is lab grown meat
Achieving the required scale and price point may take decades, potentially leading to the collapse of biodiversity long before that occurs.
> that tastes exactly the same, same texture, and is cheaper
Is our love for the taste really worth destroying the planet?
What will we say to our grandchildren? "Sorry, I couldn't give up those burgers. Now, go play in a desert."
https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-news/mea...
Veggie sausages and burgers up to ten times better for environment than meat, study finds
> they're worried about next months rent
Vegan diets are typically the most economical choice, even in first-world countries. The affordability of animal products is primarily a result of significant subsidies, without factoring in the negative externalities.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-chea...
Sustainable eating is cheaper and healthier - Oxford study
Don't be silly. Our grandchildren won't need refrigerant to survive a hot Earth; they can just live underground. Caves stay cool year-round. Or they could dig a bunch of silos, 144 levels deep, and live in those, sending outcasts to the "outside" to die in the poisoned air.
The way the vegan movement has weaseled its way into the discussion on climate change has been frankly horrifying to watch. As you said, people will not stop eating meat. Tell them that going vegan is the only way and they'll just say "fuck the planet" and not bother with it. Like, the worst that could happen is humanity going extinct. The Earth itself will be fine. Put that way, well, if we can't figure out how to run our farms more optimally, we should go extinct. Chickens don't contribute to atmospheric changes by themselves.
You think that is little? 200 g per day would be 80000 tons of meat for a 400m population (EU) - let's generously account for the less hungry babies and we'd maybe have 60000 tons.
How many cows and pigs are we talking about here daily?
> The Earth itself will be fine.
Sure. Earth will be fine even if we are hit by a megathingy that rips apart the entire lithosphere. Nature will be fine even if our sun blows up tomorrow. But what has that to do with anything?
PS My own meat consumption is down to 2-3 meat dishes per month. Don't know if that helps...
If people had to pay the real price of meat with environmental externalities factored in most people would consume at a level you've described or even less. My issue with that is it doesn't address how most lifestyle emissions are attributable to the wealthiest economic class. It's still a better alternative to the system we have now, which is clearly unsustainable.
A 1/3rd pound burger takes 660 gallons of water to produce, or about 2500 liters. That's not even getting into any of the typical inputs like antibiotics which have their own collection of problems. Say what you will about vegans, it's impossible to talk about the environment without bringing up the impacts of industrial agribusiness and factory farming.
While we're talking about efficiency, you gain an order of magnitude improvement by farming crops for humans to eat rather than farming crops for animals to eat for humans to eat. Only about 55% of the crops we go are directly consumed by humans, the rest is used for feed and biofuels. It would take a tenth of the land area to feed the same amount of people plant-based vs an omnivorous diet. We should absolutely be pushing for less centralized food production, and chickens are a useful part of that. They turn food waste into new food and deal with several pests. That's very different from slaughtering them wholesale for cheap dinosaur nuggets.
The remaining half is spread among the other 88%. Convince that 12%, or let them age out, and half the problem goes away.
[0] https://phys.org/news/2023-08-mere-americans-nation-beef-sig...
Edit: Fixed link — Thx myshpa! (still looks truncated, but seems to work now)
That conditional statement should set your skeptic sense to Defcon one.
Doesn't work. A long time ago I thought when all the old farts are gone, everything is going to be better. Had to have faith in my own generation right?
You know what happened... Humanity just grew a new set of old farts.
but hope somehow contigent or predicated on the age of those people? nah.