Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

[Jeff Robinson]

Agriculture accounts for around 10% of global emissions caused by human activity, so emissions would go down by a maximum of 10% even if every single person on the planet went vegan tomorrow.

Saying "this is the single biggest way to reduce your impact" about anything kind of clouds the fact that it isn't as much what you do as where you live - a childless vegan American or Australian will still be responsible for hundreds of times more emissions than somebody in Uganda or Nepal who might eat meat from time to time and have a few kids.

So while people can point fingers at each other all day for not making minor lifestyle adjustments, we're all massive energy hogs, we're all responsible for what's happening to the planet, and the single biggest thing we can do is to stop electing governments that don't take climate change seriously.

You’re right that the only real solution to climate change is a political one, but what to do - and how to live - prior to the election of Green governments in the developed counties (and ones that don’t just become neo-liberals once in power at that)?

Is it okay for me to burn waste in my garden and then seek to absolve myself of any responsibility because environmental degregation is already overdetermined by the operation of the global economy? I’m sure you wouldn’t accept that. But then what if evidence suggested that my consumption habits were contributing towards even worse environmental devastation and that, through fairly minor changes, I could significantly reduce them? Surely that would give me good reason to change if I profess to care about the environment?

 

[rich!]

Do many vegans become vegans for environment reasons? I think all the ones I know have done it because they feel bad for animals getting chopped up for dinner.

It was a significant part of the reason I became veggie back in the 90s. (And stayed veggie). I became vegan a couple of years ago because as a veggie you're still complicit in the meat industry so that actual change was driven by not wanting animal blood on my hands and conscience.

And not having children was a similar reason.

 

[IC3D]

These sort of threads are lifestyle affirmation gold for broke people with no kids aren't they you've had no negative impact on the world

 

[CNT36]

Agriculture accounts for around 10% of global emissions caused by human activity, so emissions would go down by a maximum of 10% even if every single person on the planet went vegan tomorrow.

Saying "this is the single biggest way to reduce your impact" about anything kind of clouds the fact that it isn't as much what you do as where you live - a childless vegan American or Australian will still be responsible for hundreds of times more emissions than somebody in Uganda or Nepal who might eat meat from time to time and have a few kids.

So while people can point fingers at each other all day for not making minor lifestyle adjustments, we're all massive energy hogs, we're all responsible for what's happening to the planet, and the single biggest thing we can do is to stop electing governments that don't take climate change seriously.

Does that account for all agricultural costs though? As far as I can tell transport is a separate category as are others such as forestry/land use and the disposal of waste. These would all need to be counted into calculations about any kind of agriculture.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I am too old to give one. Meat & cheese are what food is about.

Bollocks to the facts.

Lucky everyone else on earth is also old and will also be dead soon, otherwise this attitude would make you look a bit of a cunt.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It was a significant part of the reason I became veggie back in the 90s. (And stayed veggie). I became vegan a couple of years ago because as a veggie you're still complicit in the meat industry so that actual change was driven by not wanting animal blood on my hands and conscience.

And not having children was a similar reason.

Yeah I find anti-natalism a pretty compelling position at the present juncture. For those who want to have children it seems to me that adoption should be the first port of call: you are giving an existing child the chance of a good life, you are not adding an additional resource consumer to the world and the female doesn’t have to go through the strenuous labour of pregnancy and birthing. I understand the strong drive many have to want their own biological children, but the countervailing considerations seem sufficiently weighty to try to override them it seems to me.

 

[cheesethief]

These sort of threads are lifestyle affirmation gold for broke people with no kids aren't they you've had no negative impact on the world

I like to think I've had a massively negative impact on the world, just not from eating meat, driving cars or dropping sprogs.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Yeah I find anti-natalism a pretty compelling position at the present juncture. For those who want to have children it seems to me that adoption should be the first port of call: you are giving an existing child the chance of a good life, you are not adding an additional resource consumer to the world and the female doesn’t have to go through the strenuous labour of pregnancy and birthing. I understand the strong drive many have to want their own biological children, but the countervailing considerations seem sufficiently weighty to try to override them it seems to me.

And the award for the most pompous post of the year goes to^^^^

 

[Idaho]

People who think the answer to the "earth's" problems is no humans and no children are hilarious. It's just grumpy old man misanthropy disguised as a worthy cause.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

People who think the answer to the "earth's" problems is no humans and no children are hilarious. It's just grumpy old man misanthropy disguised as a worthy cause.

Expressing a preference for adoption over natalism seems like a philanthropic position rather than a misanthropic one to me.

 

[skyscraper101]

I don't think it's that people are saying 'no humans' and 'no children' it's about the massive and unnecessary population growth which is causing a strain on natural resources. Sure if you're a couple and have two kids that is by no means unacceptable. It's a human right after all to have kids. And you're basically only replacing yourselves on this planet. If everyone only had one kid each to replace us we'd not have a population crisis. It's when people start having loads of kids and then they have loads of kids that's the problem. And in a world where there are kids in need of adoption and a better life, the necessity of it is even more questionable.

If you don't have a kid at all you can drive an entire fleet of Hummers to and from work everyday, hanging your ass out the window farting Styrofoam packing peanuts into the atmosphere and not cause half the damage that one human causes to this planet.

 

[Idaho]

Natalism? The continual rutting and breeding of mammals doesn't require an "ism".

 

[kabbes]

People who think the answer to the "earth's" problems is no humans and no children are hilarious. It's just grumpy old man misanthropy disguised as a worthy cause.

I don’t need no disguise for my grumpy old man misanthropy. Young people can get lost with their skateboards and rap music. And don’t get me started on those video nasties they have these days.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Natalism? The continual rutting and breeding of mammals doesn't require an "ism".

Fair point. Just wanted a shorthand for ‘having biological children’. There is somewhat of an ideology around it though, or at least a cultural expectation, and adopting is stigmatised or at least ranked as a less good option. Which is a shame because adoption can be a very good thing.

 

[cheesethief]

People who have kids: Virtuous saviours, doing their bit to perpetuate the species, smug, self-satisfied, "look at me, I did what mere billions managed before me!"
People who don't have kids: Virtuous saviours, doing their bit to save the planet from over population, smug, self-satisfied, "look at me, I'm a net contributor, I'm saving the ice caps!"

You are awful. I am awful. Everyone is awful. Deal with it.

 

[DotCommunist]

I'm just hoping for a new life that awaits me in the offworld colonies

 

[Gromit]

Incorrectly titled article.

It's not impact on the EARTH!!!!!

It's just impact on wild animals they are bitching about.

Can I eat these wild animals? Like do Tesco sell em? No. So fuck em if they go extinct.

If the earth only ends up sustaining 10 animals* I'm fine with that.

* Humans, cows, pigs, sheep, goats, horses, cats, dogs, ducks, koalas.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Kids? Check.
Eat meat and dairy every day? Check.
Own a car? Check.
Fly occasionally? Check.
Live in a capitalist society built on cheap disposable products shipped from the other side of the world that are often made with what is practically slave labour? Check.


One of these is the problem, and I am as guilty of it as every single person reading this thread.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Shouldn't that report highlight red meat as the main problem rather than just meat altogether? If memory serves that in terms of environmental impact a person who subsists on poultry, along with vegetables and grains, has a similar impact on the environment as a vegan.

What I was trying to find. Says no beef so I suspect not eating pork reduces that a tad further.

 

[krtek a houby]

Don't do cow meat or dairy product because it affects the old digestion.

 

[Miss-Shelf]

New study reveals just how bad dairy and meat is:





Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

I went to a talk (a decade ago no link sorry) that said food was the biggest impact of our carbon use (based on Dutch figures) more than flights or cars and domestic fuel use . Factoring in agriculture, food miles and processing . So vegan diets could still be costly on carbon

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Kids? Check.
Eat meat and diary every day? Check.
Own a car? Check.
Fly occasionally? Check.
Live in a capitalist society built on cheap disposable products shipped from the other side of the world that are often made with what is practically slave labour? Check.


One of these is the problem, and I am as guilty of it as every single person reading this thread.

I reckon eating your diary ever day would be extremely problematic

 

[Virtual Blue]

humans are real good at destroying things, including themselves.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

I'm just hoping for a new life that awaits me in the offworld colonies

Probably won't end well unless you have money.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I reckon eating your diary ever day would be extremely problematic

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Yeah I find anti-natalism a pretty compelling position at the present juncture. For those who want to have children it seems to me that adoption should be the first port of call: you are giving an existing child the chance of a good life, you are not adding an additional resource consumer to the world and the female doesn’t have to go through the strenuous labour of pregnancy and birthing. I understand the strong drive many have to want their own biological children, but the countervailing considerations seem sufficiently weighty to try to override them it seems to me.

Wow.

Fuck off.

 

[Spymaster]

Yeah I find anti-natalism a pretty compelling position at the present juncture. For those who want to have children it seems to me that adoption should be the first port of call: you are giving an existing child the chance of a good life, you are not adding an additional resource consumer to the world and the female doesn’t have to go through the strenuous labour of pregnancy and birthing. I understand the strong drive many have to want their own biological children, but the countervailing considerations seem sufficiently weighty to try to override them it seems to me.

Fuck me, Jeff, you really have turned into a total wanker over the last couple of years.

 

[JuanTwoThree]

and adopting is stigmatised or at least ranked as a less good option

No and yes. It's often admired, but is also the plan b go-to after when having your own biological children isn't on.

 

[lazythursday]

I have every sympathy for the view that says that this is best dealt with structurally, rather than through guilt tripping individuals. But given the science (and many estimates allocate agriculture a far higher percentage than 10% as quoted above) everyone has to eat a lot less meat. Subsidies are going to have to be removed, followed by taxes - or some form of meat rationing if you want to be more equitable about it. Depressing though that there is so much denial on this thread.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Shouldn't that report highlight red meat as the main problem rather than just meat altogether? If memory serves that in terms of environmental impact a person who subsists on poultry, along with vegetables and grains, has a similar impact on the environment as a vegan.

What I was trying to find. Says no beef so I suspect not eating pork reduces that a tad further.

Tbf that’s still quite a significant variation even between the ‘no beef’ and ‘vegan’ but in any event the graph is only looking at co2 omissions and not other environmental impacts such as deforestation, water usage, water pollution etc. The report looks more broadly at different environmental impacts.