this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
346 points (96.0% liked)

Degrowth

1503 readers
31 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (6 children)

We need to stop eating beef. The fact that no one thinks that if they stop eating beef they won't have any effect is disturbing as fuck. If everyone stops eating beef then the industry will collapse.

The fact that I don't see this graph more often is annoying, I hate having to keep bringing this up, someone else share this for fucks sake please.

[–] iiGxC@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seriously. Animal agriculture needs to end and not exist whether we live in a capitalist dystopia or communist utopia, for the environment and for the sake of all sentient beings

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

The fact that you and I got downvotes just speaks massive volumes. We might not make it as a species because we have so many individuals who think it doesn't matter either way. WE ALL PLAY A FUCKING ROLE, TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR DECISIONS IN YOUR LIFE TIME.

[–] AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also concerning how many tons of beef products I've tossed due to mold in food production. Large-scale manufacturing has so many holes we could fill if only it was profitable for the companies to do so.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We coukd start by not replacing meat eating pet's when they pass,this fetisihization of pets is bizzare. The US uses more meat for pet dogs then all of the meat conumed in Germany as one example.

That aside, we could start with banning advertising, private jets, cruise ships, jet skis, flying, motocross bikes, private cars etc why ? Some poor dude being told to stop eating a burger isn't going to take anyone seriously if Gate's etal are still flying around in a private jet and folks are jetting around the world to see a Taylor Swift concert.

https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm

The burning of fossil fuels for electricity and heat accounts for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, totaling 31% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, followed by transportation at 15%, manufacturing at 12.4% and animal agriculture at 11%

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not nearly as worried about carbon dioxide as I am methane. Not eating beef is much easier than not burning fossil fuels.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/how-potent-is-methane/

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Between beef and dairy herds, cows have about the same impact as everything else combined.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I only eat Chicken and meat substitutes like Beyond meat. The problem is that greenhouses also produce a worrying amount of carbon and ramping that up could have similar effects.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstood this graph. This is per kilogram of food product. It has nothing to do with scale, it's a ratio.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm saying that as we transition away from meat products into meat substitutes, actual greenhouses will start producing more carbon emissions and simply replace the beef industry rather than amend it entirely. The systems used to regulate greenhouses are unfortunately contributing to the problem they were meant to solve.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This comment confuses me. How do you reckon that growing plants produces more carbon than growing plants and feeding them to animals?

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Growing them outside is a lot different than doing so in a temperature controlled and highly regulated environment. Air cooling, sun lamps, all that uses power and that demand goes to the grid, which is coal and oil fueled.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right so grow them outside or don't power it with coal and oil

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sure, but how do you grow enough to last the winter without greenhouses? Do you only eat meat alternatives in the growing seasons? The problem with everyone being vegan is that we don't have an agricultural infrastructure to fully support plant based food to last the entire year without greenhouses. Winter, disease, sunlight, water, all these things have a carbon cost to obtain, use, or fight against.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How do you feed the animals in winter?

Livestock requires food too. However much you need to grow and store in the warm months to feed the animals in winter could feed 10 times as many humans instead, regardless of how you do that. Not feeding the plants we grow to animals would necessarily be more efficient.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not saying greenhouses are worse I'm saying they aren't so much better than changing to plants only would be a significant enough change at scale. We need to address the core of power production, coal and oil.

[–] ClockworkN@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes. Thank you. I won't starve, only my kids will. Whew, dodged that one.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've said it once and I'll repeat it until I'm dead.

The only good green energy is nuclear and Cherenkov radiation is blue. Give me blue energy. We've advanced to the point it's not only a good idea it might be the best one we have.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Third- and fourth-gen nuclear and renewables.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With the ewaste produced by solar and wind I don't even think those are the answer for long term. Better than coal and oil sure, but I'm fully behind fission and high key hoping for fusion.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Fair. Addressing e-waste is a major issue. I wish we could just attach full-lifecycle recycling costs to the product price.

[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Its not really a win until life is sustainable.

[–] brrt@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Genuinely asking, is complacency the right word in this context?

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Complacency and some kind of emotionally-driven denial.

It always makes me think of dogs growling of you get close to their food bowls.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Damn guess we have a choice between slavery and carbon emissions, with literally no other options

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks to our current economic system. At least slave labor is not a problem of the technology itself.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I mean, we're already headed for ecological disaster no matter what we do, so don't make the mistake of over-promising. It cannot be avoided, but negative impacts could be greatly reduced.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

But-- if you stop deforestation, rapid growth and poor working conditions for low-paid labourers, the economy will slow and I might have to invest more of my personal time in farming, instead of enjoying my farming sim!

[–] MercurySunrise@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree. As a metaphor, we have to fix the foundation or the house is destined to collapse. Don't get me wrong, clean energy is an important step. I approve of people trying to help, even if that attempt may unfortunately be rooted in personal greed. The problem is people are using that help to obfuscate the root issues, which are hierarchy and capitalism. Ignorance isn't bliss. It's death.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I work in this field specifically hoping to power CO2 removal in a sustainable way.

We absolutely need to reduce consumption as a species though, as whether we power cargo ships with solar or planes with batteries, we are collectively demanding too much from our planet.

It's frankly amazing the system hasn't fully collapsed by now.

[–] garibaldi_biscuit@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] MercurySunrise@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Sustainability is absolutely impossible to achieve through capitalism, even if you instantly murder most all of the population, because of the very nature of how it views growth. It sees accumulation as being over wisdom and health, when it even considers the latter to be growth at all. Population is the way it is because of capitalism. Worse yet, we as a species are forced to do unethical reduction through war/murder/whatever if nature doesn't take care of it for us, because of this "need" for constant accumulation. It's a bad system. Don't hate the player if you aren't going to hate the game.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] 0x2d@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago