Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.ml

17 replies

Addv4reply
kbin.social

I mean, it is a pretty big change for some. I've been vegetarian for a few years now, but I still remember how much of a change in what I ate it was at the time. It helps a ton if you know how to cook, and find new recipes that use tofu or other meat alternatives.

7
usernamesAreTrickyreply
lemmy.ml

Yes and part of what they are spending lots of money doing is trying to convince people not to make any changes to their consumption

For the feed additives bit, it's more greenwashing than it is an actual method to reduce emissions. Meat production levels and in turn consumption levels really are going to have to change

What’s more, feeding cattle algae is really only practical where it’s least needed: on feedlots. This is where most cattle are crowded in the final months of their 1.5- to 2-year lives to rapidly put on weight before slaughter. There, algae feed additives can be churned into the cows’ grain and soy feed. But on feedlots, cattle already belch less methane—only 11 percent of their lifetime output

[...]

Unfortunately, adding the algae to diets on the pasture, where it’s most needed, isn’t a feasible option either. Out on grazing lands, it’s difficult to get cows to eat additives because they don’t like the taste of red algae unless it’s diluted into feed. And even if we did find ways to sneak algae in somehow, there’s a good chance their gut microbes would adapt and adjust, bringing their belches’ methane right back to high levels.

[...]

All told, if we accept the most promising claims of the algae boosters, we’re talking about an 80 percent reduction of methane among only 11 percent of all burps—roughly an 8.8 percent reduction total

https://www.wired.com/story/carbon-neutral-cows-algae/

More broadly

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

7
ebikefolderreply
feddit.de

The "final straw" in my diet: I subscribed to a "surprise bag" of 3 kg of vegetables every other week. Stuff that's too big, too crooked, too small... whatever keeps it from regular supermarket shelves. Mostly local and seasonal, always fresh and organic.

3 kilograms is quite a lot for one person when you add some pasta or rice or bread or whatever to make a complete meal.

There's hardly any room for meat left in my stomach. And I often have to find new recipes because sometimes there's stuff in this bag which I wouldn't buy otherwise.

3
usernamesAreTrickyreply
lemmy.ml

I think you may have accidentally removed your own default upvote on your comment. I've had that happen to me before (not sure how but somehow it's happened)

2
itchy_lizardreply
feddit.it

While this is true, it would help to shift subsidies on animal products to more sustainable options and add a tax on animal products.

People are more likely to buy healthier food that's better for the climate if it's also the cheapest option.

2
itchy_lizard
feddit.it

According to a 2021 NYU study published in the science journal Springer, ExxonMobil, one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world, spent $235m on lobbying between 2000 and 2018. US-based Tyson, the second-largest meat company in the world after Brazil’s JBS, spent more than $25m between 2001 and 2018. As a share of each company's total revenue over those periods, Tyson spent 21% more on lobbying than ExxonMobil, found the research

Wow

2
itchy_lizard
feddit.it

The influence of the meat industry is reminiscent of the influence of the oil and gas industry

Interesting, I usually compare it to the tobacco industry. Meat kills so many people in my country, yet Big Meat still goesion TV and lies that meat is healthy with a straight face.

Most of us know the truth, and eventually we'll have pictures of rotten hearts on packages of meat with warnings from the surgeon general. And hopefully time served for these lying meat execs

1
usernamesAreTrickyreply
lemmy.ml

Not sure if you mean that it's dumb that the meat industry does this or that the article is dumb. If the latter, it's worth noting that the meat industry's contributions to climate change are enough to make us miss climate targets on their own

To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

(emphasis mine)

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

15

You reached the end

Big meat’s big PR investments are blocking climate action | Spyke