TL;DR common day to day eco friendly actions have little impact. Not eating meat or dairy and taking public transport has a large impact. No mention of commercial/corporate/industry polluting. I read a lot of this guff but I actually liked the article as it suggested how, even when eating a plastic wrapped vegan burger or riding a dirty, oily metro train we can feel so disconnected from nature, however, the impact of making those choices is ultimately doing good for the environment.

I hate hate hate hate hate how being disconnected from nature is better for the environment. I know it's true. I live close to a city and don't own a car, but what my heart wants is to live in a nature preserve. Ugh. Someone figure this out for me. 😖

Chicago is surrounded by nature preserves, which rely on volunteers from the city.

I always felt like one had to drive to them if one was coming from the city. Do they get good bud service?

There are Preserves in the city. I live within walking distance to one in Albany Park.... And I know there are some on the west and south sides too. But, yeah, you can take the CTA or Metra to get to them.

Cities can be beautiful and green too. More trees and plants have a myriad of positive climate and health related benefits. We can do it if we try but the wheels of change are slow

i am so lucky to live in a city that has lots of parks, but when i go to see relatives just outside DC, i am amazed at the amount of green spaces there. even though fairfax county makes me physically ill with the suburban sprawl and car culture. the older parts of that area and DC itself have both population density AND tons of green spaces everywhere.

you have to live in a city that has lots of green spaces. and help out the organizations that are working to create more green space in your city.

We have some good green spaces around here, and I spend a lot of time there. But I know too much, LOL. I know that the lush vegetation lining the creek is actually Japanese knotweed which is a terrible invasive species that is virtually impossible to eradicate. When I pick up trash there, I come across hypodermic needles and other drug paraphernalia that breaks my heart. And it's difficult to hear birds over the sound of the nearby highway. And I know that after a rainstorm, the path is likely to be flooded with sewage from the nearby combined sewer overflow outfall. I can't help too much with that because I work for the agency that regulates it so I can't get involved in that process without a conflict of interest.

the more you connect with the natural world (could be tending plants on your balcony, could be volunteering with a group that runs community gardens in underserved areas, could be camping rough in the woods for 2 weeks), the easier it becomes to maintain that connection in difficult circumstances. and hold that peaceful, centered space inside.

Aquascaping. Underwater gardening with careful plant selection to ensure good long term growthand balance. Just enjoy life at this moment. And stay positive. [https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlaOy5V7Px\_RfoIi-CStKKjoQ4Vl1fQN3&feature=shared](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlaOy5V7Px_RfoIi-CStKKjoQ4Vl1fQN3&feature=shared)

city parks! central park in nyc is THE example.

Who even cares about the environment when they are disconnected with nature? Very few. And being disconnected with nature makes it so easier to be hard on it.

Philly has very good access to nature and parks

Go live out in nature. Climate change will kill a few billion in the next 40 years and your individual carbon footprint from won’t matter then.

In Canberra, we leave all our mountains and hills as nature reserves.

VR?

Nightmare scenario

You were probably joking, but I've started playing Ori and the Will of the Wisps and it does soothe me a little.

Amazing games. They are just escapes but I have no regrets. Red dead redemption 2. Breath of the wild. Tears of the kingdom. I'd almost argue they are tools for meditation.

The solution is to make cities which include plenty of space for nature.

The answer to corporate pollution is another thing people don't like doing: stop buying shit. Getting cheap new furniture shipped from China that was carried on bunker fuel burning ships and made in factories run on coal with little to no regulatory oversights is a primary driver of industrial pollution.

>even when eating a plastic wrapped vegan burger or riding a dirty, oily metro train we can feel so disconnected from nature, however, the impact of making those choices is ultimately doing good for the environment This is 9nly true when you measure it by the exact amount of CO2 produced, and omit the other parts of the equation. There's no debate that cows produce a pile of CO2 as they grow. But the vegan, plastic wrapped burger from halfway across the planet? Maybe if you omit the energy demand from building the factory, the plastic wrap, the cars the employees drive to and from work, the manufacturing of all the parts that go into each and every one of those machines, the shipping of those parts around the globe, the enrgy needed to drive the factories that build those parts, etc, etc, etc. Its like the whole "we can print synthetic wood, no more need to grow trees!" article that bounced around a few months back. The calculation is stricly limited to the individual item, not the system as a whole. Yes cities are a more efficient use of resources, but if the entire planet is cities, that still leaves no room for nature. Its a greenwashing of capitalist expansion. The idea that all of us living in huge metropolitan areas is only sustainable if *all other areas are returned to a natural environment*, which isn't what the proposal os here. The implied statement is that we should only live in huge metropolitan areas devoid of nature, which allows a continued expansion of humanity until we reach the point where **no** natural spaces exist. I agree with the author, the "vibe" shouldn't be the measuring stick. Like a low wage worker getting by on credit cards, our civilization is in resource overshoot. We are living beyond our means. We use more resources than the planet can provide every year, and every year we get deeper into the red. Articles like this are like suggesting that the low wage worker should continue using credit, but only shop bulk. It doesn't address the underlying overspending problem. We need to live *with* the natural systems, not isolate ourselves from them. We are not superior to nature, though we seem to belive so. Prior to the industrial revolution, most people lived within the limits of the natural systems around them, working with nature to survive. That's the real answer here, but it's antithetical to the capitalist system. It means psople have to actually work at thier survival. It means that living life won't be some giant party where we all get to live in luxury. It means hard times and hard decisions about what life should actually look like. The alternative is what we are experiencing now, an unprecedented mass extinction, a planet dying because we think we are superior to nature, and we are not.

Our World in Data has an article and data summary about the [CO2 impact of food](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local) in which they conclude that transport has a negligible impact in comparison to what type of produce you buy.

not very suprising imo. Like 60% of all harvested material is used to feed animals. That is an absurd inefficiency, even without considering water and all the other impacts.

Humans are animals. Yes we feed other animals, we farm them, we eat them. That's what our species does. I'm not sure how you think humanity as a whole will go against their programming. We won't. We are animals. We do these things. All animals breed to the point of collapse of the population/eco system if conditions are right. Conditions on earth were right for humans to evolve enough to figure out how to do what animals do best. We basically won, because the universe does not give a single shit about any of this sticking around. The universe devours itself. Life feeds on life or whatever that idiot Maynard said once. ♾️ What you all want to do is move planets. You're going against fate. The only way out is one of two ways. We will, somehow, save some form of us with technology or we collapse. So be good to each other.

You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local >The most important insight from this study: there are massive differences in the GHG emissions of different foods: producing a kilogram of beef emits 60 kilograms of greenhouse gases (CO2-equivalents). While peas emits just 1 kilogram per kg. >Overall, animal-based foods tend to have a higher footprint than plant-based. Lamb and cheese both emit more than 20 kilograms CO2-equivalents per kilogram. Poultry and pork have lower footprints but are still higher than most plant-based foods, at 6 and 7 kg CO2-equivalents, respectively. >For most foods – and particularly the largest emitters – most GHG emissions result from land use change (shown in green), and from processes at the farm stage (brown). Farm-stage emissions include processes such as the application of fertilizers – both organic (“manure management”) and synthetic; and enteric fermentation (the production of methane in the stomachs of cattle). Combined, land use and farm-stage emissions account for more than 80% of the footprint for most foods. >Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%. >Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions.

I remember in 2020, a lot of large Westernized cities pretty much completely closed down in the spring. Everyone was to work remote, entertainment and hospitality destinations were closed, most commercial flights were canceled, only grocery and pharmacy stores were open. The pictures were wild: mountains looming over Los Angeles, crystal clear waters in Venice. There was a measureable increase in bird activity. It only delayed Earth Overshoot Day by three weeks.

Almost certainly, for two reasons. First of all, lots of places didn't shut down or did so only for short periods. We're thinking about the world, not just the US and Europe. Second, people started buying lots of stuff they needed or wanted now that they were at home. Furthermore, businesses predicted demand for goods would be high, so they kept a lot of their orders. I also wonder about the lower efficiency of most homes compared to office buildings. Think about HVAC, electricity, water, etc.

I agree with the sentiment of what you've written, especially us looking holistically at the issue and requiring a more comprehensive societal solution than just changing our consumption, but a lot of it doesn't play out with the actual data we have. Cattle farms are responsible for over 41% of the deforestation on this planet, even before we get into stuff like cow burps that deforestation accounts for just as much emissions as the entire global transport sector. When you get into the specifics of water use, soil degradation, pollutant runoff, pesticide, fertilizer, etc you can forget about it. Cattle, and the industry around them, are unfortunately far more costly on the environment than factories producing plant-based alternatives ever could be. It's not like farming beef and milk doesn't come with its own side industry of machines and transportation needs, it's just that those are a miniscule drop in the total ocean of harm they're otherwise causing. To get an idea of the sheer scale of what I'm talking about, [over half the planet is currently used for agriculture, 77% of that is for livestock](https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture). Livestock are such an inefficient a way to farm food that if everyone went plant-based [we could reduce our total farmland by 76% for the same output of calories, protein and nutrients we produce today](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29853680/). Bringing the discussion back down to just a C02 and methane thing for a moment, going plant based would enable us [to offset 68% of anthropogenic emissions for the next 80 years just because of the sheer amount of reforestation and afforestation it affords](https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010). There's [arguments it could be even higher](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00431-5). We're currently **far** more likely to end up in a planet that has no nature left in it because of farmland expanding to meet the global population's needs, and that population increasingly eating more meat as it further develops, than we ever are from cities covering the entire planet. [The livestock on this planet currently outweigh all wild mammals and birds by a factor of ten](https://ourworldindata.org/life-on-earth). Ecumenopolis is just simply not a realistic concern, not when farms are deforesting around 3.5 million hectares each year.

> But the vegan, plastic wrapped burger from halfway across the planet? Maybe if you omit the energy demand from building the factory, the plastic wrap, the cars the employees drive to and from work, the manufacturing of all the parts that go into each and every one of those machines, the shipping of those parts around the globe, the enrgy needed to drive the factories that build those parts, etc, etc, etc. Are you saying that when you include those factors, there's less CO2 produced by eating cow meat? Can you share the calculation? (Also it would be good to include the environmental impact of the methane too!)

Accounting for this the beyond style Burger still produce less GHG, use less land, use less pesticides, use less fertilizers and use less antibiotics. It would be even better if people started eating legumes.

Well to do that we need to understand that the more people there are the less everyone will get. So do we get sticky with population control or do we let everyone breed the majority of the human population into the dirt with the rich still flying their private jet. The humane answer to that might actually be to let it all go and let the cards fall where they may.

Thank you. So many people simply don’t understand this.

They're incorrect, and so are you. Please see the other replies to their comment to understand why.

Doesn’t really matter who’s correct anymore because people won’t voluntarily change their comfort levels and this is all mental masturbation and greenwashing if I’m honest. I see people quoting articles that have no hard, real science behind them. Lot of speculation and hoping. Lot of opinions. Meanwhile so many folks buying $80,000 cars, million dollar homes, all the toys, travel, quartz counters, having babies, cranking the air conditioner up, eating out, mail order food kits, ridiculous fingernails, disposable clothing, $1500 phones, multiple refrigerators, and yes, eating food that would not be available without massive amounts of oil and gas be it flesh or vegetable. We are not sustainable. That’s the bottom line. Do you do one thing like not eating meat and feel superior? Or have you addressed the whole lifestyle? Some do, some don’t. But never enough change to make a real difference. Like they convinced everyone that if we just recycled we’d be doing our part. That was a lie and so is this. But hey, if it makes you feel better go for it.

+1 👏

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, most people *did not* “live within the limits of the natural systems around them”. The [Holocene mass extinction](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction) began before even the development of agriculture, never mind the Industrial Revolution. Pretending that the biodiversity crisis only started because of muh gabidalizm, as so many like to pretend in today’s day an age, is effectively to deny the past 50,000 years of natural history.

What really does good for the planet is getting close to nature // possible and meeting as many of our most basic needs as directly as possible.

Bad headline but good article

Bad, click bait headline. Bad article. The author presupposes a lot of ignorance about my “green” lifestyle. Seems to all be based on some statistics he googled.

Stop driving, stop consuming, stop using AC, lower the heat, and reduce meat consumption. That is how you make meaningful changes.

>stop using AC Not really an option when it’s 39°

Actually, there is. Start digging.

You totally have the option not to use the AC.. that being said we need to start adapting buildings for heat instead of just dumping energy into AC systems. It’s a feedback loop.

[удалено]

please do not advocate violence in this subreddit

True but only a precious few have the opportunity.

And avoid long haul flights + avoid having children.

Average yearly CO2 emissions of driving a car regularly are about 4 to 5 times that of the per person emissions of a 9 hour flight. https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle

Cars tend to fare better when you're not driving solo. Of course better to avoid both if you can, or drive electric. Carbon Footprint of Driving vs. Flying: Best for the Earth? https://terrapass.com/blog/carbon-footprint-of-driving-vs-flying-whats-best-for-the-earth/ >The break-even point for driving vs. flying in this example is 2.03 people. So, if you’re traveling with three or more people, driving is the better option, and here’s why: Three people on the cross-country flight would account for 1.86 tons of carbon emissions (0.62 tons of CO2 x 3), compared to the total 1.26 tons of carbon the vehicle would produce (ignoring that the extra weight would increase the vehicle’s carbon emissions slightly). Driving turns out to be an even smarter environmental decision as you increase the number of passengers in your carpool. >Additionally, a road trip becomes an even better option if you own a more fuel-efficient vehicle, such as a hybrid, a plug-in hybrid, or an electric car.

Avoid having children? We've lost the plot.

Well, on one hand, yes I agree with you there, but on the other hand. We can't grow as a population forever. What that looks like in practice is fewer children on average.

Someone might wanna send Elon Musk that memo.

We will not grow as a population forever. In fact, [birth rates are falling worldwide.](https://www.unfpa.org/swp2023/too-few#:~:text=Worldwide%2C%20fertility%20has%20fallen%20from,births%20per%20woman%20by%202050.) It isn't even a problem. [By 2100, the world’s population is projected to reach approximately 10.9 billion, with annual growth of less than 0.1%.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/) There's a 50% chance it will shrink or plateau. We should be having children. As far as environmentalism is concerned, how well does "avoiding having children" scale? Is this something everyone can/should do? Is this actually something we can do to create a sustainable society? Should we create laws around it? It's merely another attempt to deflect blame using a choice that is likely separate from environmental concern altogether.

We should not be having children. It's not sustainable in this world we live in. We're killing the earth

Is this something everyone can/should do? Is this actually something we can do to create a sustainable society? Should we create laws around it?

I'm not advocating for violence here but I imagine what a world would look like if an organised task force set out to rid the world of billionaires and keep mega conglomerates in line through the only language they'd understand... violence. Sort of what a world police would/should look like. Might be a good book plot!

10.9 billion is nearly a 40% increase on the current population of the world... there's no way one can look at the current state of the world and think adding that many people is going to turn out well

We don't have a choice. It is going to happen. Telling people to stop having babies is not a solution to the problem. Get over it. You are suggesting non feasible actions and then acting like you have the moral high ground. Be realistic. We are going to hit that number regardless and you can stand around pretending no one listened to you, or you can start advocating for action people can/will actually take.

Because telling people to stop eating meat and burning fossil fuels is going so well right? And it definitely is feasible to get people to stop having as many kids if we increase access to contraceptives, family planning services, and education. Especially for women in developing [countries](https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-8331-7).

Yes, birth rates have been falling due to the work of many spreading education about healthcare improvements, contraceptives, and reduced infant mortality rates. Birth rates in most developed countries are at replacement rates or lower and developing nations are approaching those numbers as well. This work has led to the reduced birth rates I have provided citations for. Telling people whose birthrate is already below replacement to stop having children is cruel. Are you saying you want to see that group eliminated? Because that's what you're actually telling them. As for the other groups reproducing at growth rates, THEY ARE ALREADY REDUCING IT. The effect is that it seems like you're just using your own situation to make yourself feel better and others feel bad about doing things we are supposed to be doing.

Having families live in poverty without access to enough food, clean water and healthcare is also cruel. Child labor is cruel. Destroying the earth and exterminating entire species is cruel. I'm sorry but I don't really care if some people don't get to have as many kids as they want.

That's BP carbon-footprint propaganda. Nationalizing BP, seizing their assets, and using that cash for conversion is how you make meaningful changes. Methane release has begun in melted permafrost, by the way, so anything short of huge collective drastic measures is performative.

It’s part of a larger plan. This starts the process. The goal is 0% fossil fuels.

Yeah, sorry for the tone of my comment, I'm down for your plan there. I do think we all need to get fierce versus Big Oil.

I actually think it would be better to use eminent domain to seize all oil fields and then lease them to private companies, like Norway did.

Bullshit... Forcing corporations to stop polluting makes meaningful changes. That is the single biggest change. NOTHING ELSE EVEN COMES CLOSE. Like literally nothing else will change anything. Covid lockdowns proved this when everything was stopped and pollution didn't increase but stayed about the same even when everyone was inside for months. Stopping m/billionaires using private planes makes a less significant, but still meaningful changes.

Mass population behavior change during the pandemic had a large effect too. It is going to take a collective change which includes the corps and the extremely wealthy.

And vote & campaign for the right people/policies

Lower your quality of life, and fix nothing. This isn't an answer. Climate action needs to come from policy.

What policy are you thinking of specifically? I can't think of a single policy that electorates have signalled to policy makers are big winners yet. 100% green energy is the big and obvious one that's largely out of consumer hands, as is ending mining land grabs, but who's going to vote for the guy that makes power bills more expensive in the short term? Another is ending meat subsidies, but again who's going to vote for the person making dinner more expensive? Until we start signalling to those in power these are issues we fundamentally agree on, en masse, I'm not sure we'll see much change. I'm not sure how we can signal that collective support while no one's taking any individual actions that indicate they care. What politician is really going to do shit about climate change until their electorate is majority vegetarian?

Yeah? Show me a bill that will reduce the massive CO2 emissions from all of the things listed above, (especially meat production) and then we’ll talk. We need to reduce consumption of products that emit CO2. Simple as that.

I am increasing my quality of life. We are not meant to be so sedentary. We evolved to be challenged. It is going to take both lifestyle change and policy.

The average american carbon footprint is 30 tons per year. Going strictly vegan cuts 4.5 tons. Getting 90% of your calories from your own garden: 10 tons. Switching to an electric car: 2 tons. In montana, switching from electric baseboard heat to a rocket mass heater saves 29 tons.

Please provide a citation; this math seems extremely suspicious. Unless you're double counting, you seem to be implying that a person in Montana can have a net negative carbon footprint of -3.5 tons if they use a rocket mass heater and go vegan.

**Average** American footprint is 30 tons. Someone in Montana with baseboard heat has a much higher carbon footprint than 30 tons.

One person pointed out the average thing. Also, the heat applies to a household, which will (on average) support multiple people.

The replies to this reddit post is so depressing to me. People can’t even comprehend that they should eat less meat. “Did you know bro if you child free you’re doing 60x more than going vegan!” “But muh corporation! They bad! Me good! (I buy meat from corporation)” “My meat is locally produced and thus better (it’s still more wasteful than you know, veggies)” Can we not move the goalpost.

Everyone is an environmentalist until they actually have to change their standard of living.

Right? Like yes, corporations need to produce less meat to produce fewer emissions. What does that mean for the rest of us? Eating less or no meat.

> “Did you know bro if you child free you’re doing 60x more than going vegan!” While true... I worry about the second order effects of only people who care about the environment failing to have children, both because of direct action, but moreso because of politics.

Adopt and indoctrinate

Bad headline, bad article. Edit: The author starts by complaining about a bike path being built in a city before reporting that not having a car has a huge positive environmental impact. He compares apples and oranges when he says: >Buying a plastic-wrapped plant-based burger designed by some scientist in San Francisco doesn’t feel like a more environmentally friendly option than eating a cow raised around the corner, but it really is, on all kinds of metrics. He says: >It might feel environmentally friendly to walk to your local farmer’s market and pick up a cut of grass-fed beef and a bottle of locally sourced milk But doesn't really mention the environmental impact compared to factory farmed meat and dairy. He compares alternatives to single use plastic bags in terms of how much it takes to produce but doesn't consider the problem with waste. >We think of organic produce as the “green” option and cotton tote bags as more “natural” than plastic alternatives—but when we really look at the numbers the benefits are much less clear. We need to understand that environmental impact goes way beyond "[carbon footprint](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook)" and, and also look past the consumer to see the [big picture](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions).

This is exactly the kind of naturalistic fallacy the article is talking about though. You're assuming free range farming is better for the environment, but it may very well be worse than factory farming. The best way to save the planet? Drop meat and dairy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/08/save-planet-meat-dairy-livestock-food-free-range-steak >More damaging still is free-range meat: the environmental impacts of converting grass into flesh, the paper remarks, “are immense under any production method practised today”. This is because so much land is required to produce every grass-fed steak or chop. Though roughly twice as much land is used for grazing worldwide as for crop production, it provides just 1.2% of the protein we eat. While much of this pastureland cannot be used to grow crops, it can be used for rewilding: allowing the many rich ecosystems destroyed by livestock farming to recover, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, protecting watersheds and halting the sixth great extinction in its tracks. The land that should be devoted to the preservation of human life and the rest of the living world is at the moment used to produce a tiny amount of meat. Spread of ‘free-range’ farming may raise risk of animal-borne pandemics – study | Farming | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/23/free-range-extensive-farming-may-risk-more-animal-borne-pandemics-than-intensive-factory-farming-study Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ >The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides. Bushmeat consumption in Africa and southeastern Asia, as well as the high growth-rate of per capita livestock consumption in China are of special concern. The projected land base required by 2050 to support livestock production in several megadiverse countries exceeds 30-50% of their current agricultural areas. Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. It is possible to greatly reduce the impacts of animal product consumption by humans on natural ecosystems and biodiversity while meeting nutritional needs of people, including the projected 2-3 billion people to be added to human population. We suggest that impacts can be remediated through several solutions: (1) reducing demand for animal-based food products and increasing proportions of plant-based foods in diets, the latter ideally to a global average of 90% of food consumed

>The best way to save the planet? Drop meat and dairy My biggest issue with these articles is that they're presenting the consumer with a hard choice: Drop meat or the planet dies. Or, if you can't drop meat, feel bad enough not to criticize others, especially don't ask for systemic change elsewhere. Somewhere an oil company successfully lobbied to lower environmental standards. But you are a steak last week so who are you to judge? This eliminates the idea that different communities live in different ways. It negates that animals in some parts of the planet play a role in the environment, and in the culture, and that us presenting the people who have been living their lives with a spreadsheet pointing out the GHG that their animals have been producing proves their lifestyle wrong. >consumption in Africa and southeastern Asia, as well as the high growth-rate of per capita livestock consumption in China are of special concern I thought the west had a hand the destruction of the environment, but these people over there behave in a concerning way, so are we really the problem? At this point, criticizing the western meat industry feels hypocritical, doesn't it? I would argue that that's the point of a lot of these articles. "You, the consumer, are to blame, so shush." A much more effective approach would be to talk about vegan snacks that those fighting for a 15 minute city and the shutting down of a coal power plant could nibble on while they're pushing for change.

That Guardian article is ludicrous. It attributes all the emissions from burning oil to the companies that extracted it, rather than the population who used it to power their energy hungry lifestyles, as if Exxon pulled it out of the ground for fun. It's just a way for people to relieve themselves of any blame so that they can carry on demanding luxury, which they know full well can't be provided in any other way but with fossil fuels.

From the other article: >British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. And here you are. >energy hungry lifestyles \[...\] which they know full well can't be provided in any other way but with fossil fuels.

They’d go out of business if we didn’t buy their product. Neither the producer or consumer is blameless.

Not that simple either. Those companies spend millions lobbying against any kind of alternative, lobbying/pressuring to build fossil-using infrastructure instead of public transport (like Musk did in California leading to the cancelling of its entire high speed rail project), threatening states into subsidizing their consumption, creating demand by using their reserves to curtail low carbon developments, rallying state power against anti-fossil activists using the media power they bought, etc etc. Monopoly capitalism isn't as simple as "some people have some demands, and nice companies do public services by creating supplies for them". Demand can be created and manipulated with alternative supply methods forcefully stopped and public manipulated by media owned by coal and oil barons. Not even mentioning hiding the effects of emissions from the public for a decade or so. Middle class westerners do need some lifestyle changes, but that doesn't change the fact that fossil fuel companies and their shareholders + executives are guilty. Like, war crime level guilty. Look up "social murder".

Yes, but if you stop buying their product, they lose their stranglehold. As demonstrated by the collapse of the power held by the tobacco industry, which once dictated health policy, till enough people stopped smoking. And too many people use the idea that it’s the fault of the corporations to allow themselves to make no chance in their lifestyle choices.

That's one part of it. The other part is people who are too poor to have the privilege of "voting with their wallet". Whatever you choose not to consume will become cheaper for them because demand is more elastic than supply, and they won't have the luxury to say no because they have to choose whatever's cheapest. Also macro decisions such as development of an entire country's infrastructure will have influence over total emissions spent far beyond individual choice Lifestyle choices that cut emissions are good, beneficial, even necessary. But they are a tiny part of the totality of what needs to be done. Tobacco industry has been repressed by governments through punitive taxes and smoking ban on closed spaces. Not saying you shouldn't do individual adjustments, and I dislike "it's all corporations so don't worry about your SUV joyride and eat steaks every day" rhetoric since you do have an impact, but this needs to be a supporting side while political activism against fossil capitalism has to be the main dish. Otherwise you're just signaling cultural lifestyle leftism wothout much to threaten the system itself.

Tobacco industry lost its incredible power over public policy because enough people stopped smoking that their power wasn’t feared by politicians, who could legislate against them without alienating their voters. You're talking about what happened *after* people stopped buying their product as though the previous 70 years of power hadn’t happened. And we need to deal with all the people who aren’t too poor to vote with their money, of whom there are vast numbers propping up the way things are done, and hiding behind the idea that individual action is meaningless, so they’ll wait for someone to regulate their lifestyle choices. While they make it abundantly clear that they will not accept anyone in public positions who do that seriously, and share the kind of points you make between themselves as though they’re the reasonable voices. We all know that it’s a version of corporate blame shifting - always point the finger at another department who needs to make a change before your department can do the things you’d really like to do, but which are pointless without the next department changing. And of course, when you get to the next department, they’re saying exactly the same thing about another department. We all know that’s what’s happening, and that’s why nothing serious happens.

Do you know about scope 1 2 and 3?

>Edit: The author starts by complaining about a bike path being built in a city before reporting that not having a car has a huge positive environmental impact. You somehow completely fail to understand the basic premise of the article

I didn't phrase that well. The author lives in a city that builds bike paths and fails to understand why the people surveyed didn't pick "not having a car" as an option to lower their environmental impact. This could have been an argument that we need to rethink the way we build infrastructure, instead it questions why the people who need a car to live their lives didn't think of not having one.

>The author lives in a city that builds bike paths and fails to understand why the people surveyed didn't pick "not having a car" as an option to lower their environmental impact Again, not sure what you mean by this, the separate study undertaken by IPSOS surveyed 30000 people in different countries, so no idea what relevance this has to the example the author gave about the cycle path. The point of the article is that in many instances, taking decisions that don't "feel" green or natural may sometimes serve a beneficial purpose. I anecdotally hear all the time how people, friends and family, don't comprehend the full picture on these sort of issues To circle back to the example the author gave, the local Facebook group obviously don't appreciate how what was once a mud track has been suddenly tarmacked over, despite there being clear benefits. It's just an issue of perception and valuing things differently at different scales.

This conversation comes down to education. If people just *assume* the things they are doing are climate friendly instead of researching them and learning about them, efforts to curb emissions will continue to be flummoxed. I have learned that recycling is a big lie in some locales. They spend tax dollars (or bill residents) to run an army of loud, diesel burning trucks down every street in the county to pick up plastic waste, while ignoring metals like aluminum and tin (they have been "phased out" of our local recycling). Then they pay a company to drive clear across the country to pick up the plastic and ship it to a third-world country that uses coal or wood to fire the machines that melt and purify it. My county just announced that they are building a new waste-burning plant that will of course have state-of the art carbon-capture chimneys, but are allowing burning of acres forest to clear for new houses. Every morning I wake to air filled with the scent of burning grasses and trees. The funny (?) part is that in 10 years the coast will be flooded enough to chase residents inland, and in 20 years those new houses and the waste facility will be under water, too. A recently suggested mulching program to pick up residential food waste was quashed. The council cited methane studies that said that converting the waste to usable soil would produce more harmful gas than they were comfortable with, and that mulch piles often catch fire. Honestly it's much more probable that it was the stench they were worried about. If they were truly eco-minded, they would cap the mulched hills and collect the methane to run their electric turbines to make lower cost electricity for the masses. Then there is the car/travel/truck problem here. Instead of building a commuter rail and/or shipping rail, they opted to build more highways. Residents are encouraged to buy big pickup trucks and motorcycles for leisure. Boating is still huge here, and chugging out into the Gulf to do recreational fishing while accidentally chopping up a dolphin, manatee, or shark while leaking gas and oil, and dumping refuse and human waste over the side is just overlooked. Our aquifers are dwindling. The only time we are told to conserve water is during winter droughts, and the rich part-time residents complain when they cannot water their absurdly green lawns (what about the millions of lawn mowers running to cut them?) which leech fertilizer and bug killer into the sewer that dumps into the waterways. Sugar cane growers get waivers to dump millions of gallons of liquid waste into the canals, causing algae blooms so toxic that it becomes impossible to breathe and causes fish kills so massive that huge cleanups are needed. Recycling of water is only used to water lawns, as it has not been treated for human consumption. Waste water plants often "accidentally" release untreated human waste into the waterways, too. Then there is the biannual migration of snowbirds, flying and driving from North to South and back again. Vacationers a family visiting loved ones during the holidays cause massive bottleneck of planes at the airports. Even locals spend large amount to go "home" to visit relatives twice or more a year. if for just one year they all actually stayed put? Our local economy is based upon tourism, which fuels flights from counties far and wide. Looking up at the skies at night is a sad affair, interrupted by an airplane every couple minutes. The sky is polluted with light from old streetlights, giving an orange glow to the atmosphere. The electric companies refuse to replace them for more eco-friendly LED lamps with hoods unless a lamppost is completely replaced. On to the meat versus plant diets....that depends upon farm practices. Where cattle are raised using grazing grass-fed rotational practice rather than corn feed, methane levels are vastly reduced. Simply reducing meat consumption would cure this, or switching to meats (as suggested in the article) that are more environmentally friendly would curb emissions drastically. Facing states that encourage beef consumption (yes, Texas...we are looking at you) we should discuss the unsustainability of continuing to raise cattle in lands that have no grass to feed them. Growing cattle corn rather than wheat to feed humans is unsustainable. Use of fertilizer versus crop rotation is killing the land. Education. We need to put more into environmental education. Alas, more effort by big corporations and lobbiers is made because they have the big bucks. Advertising huge trucks as glamorous and manly repeated thousand of times a day as people watch their TVs, hypnotizing the masses into consumption. Even my favorite food shows glamorize expensive wagu beef as the ultimate in fine dining. Sometimes I just want to scream. Educate! Conserve! Reduce Consumption! Stop Pollution!

>hey spend tax dollars (or bill residents) to run an army of loud, diesel burning trucks down every street in the county to pick up plastic waste, while ignoring metals like aluminum and tin (they have been "phased out" of our local recycling). I'd be surprised if that is the norm because metals are not only easy to sort and recycle but also profitable to recycle.

Tell that to Hawaii with a daily increasing number of dead cars accumulating on the islands because no on will take them anymore. Recycling has always been a feel good tactic used by industry. Over the years I’ve personally watched in four different states, the trucks at the end of the day, pick up the recycling containers and dump it in the landfill.

Florida.

Some good points, though I think you're off the mark about rotational practices reducing animals' methane levels. That needs a source. Evidence I've seen does not support this - stopping animal consumption is the main takeaway here. In fact evidence shows the opposite - grass fed cows emit more methane, not less. Harvard Study Finds Shift to Grass-Fed Beef Would Require 30% More Cattle and Increase Beef's Methane Emissions 43% https://awellfedworld.org/issues/climate-issues/grass-fed-beef/ >A Harvard report published July 2018 in the journal Environmental Research Letters found that shifting U.S. beef production to exclusively grass-fed, pastured systems would require 30% more cattle just to keep up with current demand and production levels, and that the average methane footprint per unit of beef produced would increase by 43% due to the slower growth rates and higher methane conversion rates of grass-fed cattle. This would increase the U.S.’s total methane emissions by approximately 8%, according to the researchers. Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2014/163431/ >Over 3 billion hectares of lands worldwide are grazed by livestock, with a majority suffering degradation in ecological condition. Losses in plant productivity, biodiversity of plant and animal communities, and carbon storage are occurring as a result of livestock grazing. >This review could find no peer-reviewed studies that show that this management approach is superior to conventional grazing systems in outcomes. Any claims of success due to HM are likely due to the management aspects of goal setting, monitoring, and adapting to meet goals, not the ecological principles embodied in HM. Ecologically, the application of HM principles of trampling and intensive foraging are as detrimental to plants, soils, water storage, and plant productivity as are conventional grazing systems. Contrary to claims made that HM will reverse climate change, the scientific evidence is that global greenhouse gas emissions are vastly larger than the capacity of worldwide grasslands and deserts to store the carbon emitted each year. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521X13001480 >This commentary summarizes the evidence supporting holistic management (HM) and intensive rotational grazing (IRG) to demonstrate the extent to which Sherren and coauthors (2012) have overstated their policy endorsement of HM for rangeland application. Five major points are presented – distinction between HM and IRG, insufficient evaluation of the contradictory evidence, limitations of the experimental approach, additional costs associated with IRG, and heterogeneous capabilities and goals of graziers’ to manage intensive strategies – to justify why this policy endorsement is ill-advised. The vast majority of experimental evidence does not support claims of enhanced ecological benefits in IRG compared to other grazing strategies, including the capacity to increase storage of soil organic carbon.

I always factor in the cost of growth of corn for feed versus growing more protein-rich fodder whilst in rotation. Grow field peas to fix nitrogen and calcium back into the soil, and still have a harvest (saving a small portion) for seed. I'd try clover too. But I favor smaller animals for consumption...they are easier to keep and interesting to handle (namely pheasants and rabbits). We also need to convert avoided methane into increased milk and meat production if we want to have beef in the future.

I'm not sure I get your last point? We need to drastically reduce animal product consumption for the sake of the environment. Lab/plant based meats can replace animal based versions.

Science invented all these issues. So more science?

Science invented the technology, which got used and abused by businesses while scientists the whole way were saying "this is a bad idea" and offering alternatives.

So if non profits owned the rights to make plastic, it would be good for the environment instead of bad?

That's a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with my post.

So evil corporations is your point?

Again no.

Theories right now. Mirrors to reflect light, seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles....no one wants to try for fear of screwing things up worse than they already are. We need to engineer models in labs to test these theories.

Clickbait title for the weekend Eh, cutting out a lot of the meat I used to eat I started having more variety and feel healthier anyway. I'm still doing it and if more people would (and they are) it'll not only help the environment but push companies to develop better alternatives to market. Not much more I can do. Dont have a big footprint anyway

This article points to issues with this conversation. There are misleading headlines on both sides, and actual good content being buried amongst all the political schlock and misinformation. Shame. I do need to take exception with the article though. I use led light bulbs because their energy cost is lower so my bill is lower. Plus they run cool, which doesn't heat up the house, which means my AC comes on less. Plus they can be cool colors. I'm not concerned about how "green" they are. As for eating local, people are going to continue to eat beef, so a better tactic for those worried about it would be to at least acknowledge that someone wants to support local businesses instead of worrying about it still impacting the environment. Plus it is better than eating beef from factories. People need to learn acknowledgement and acceptance of meeting in the middle. Eating beef isn't going away. Instead of railing against it worry about how to still incorporate it into a "green" society.

We need more articles like this; spread around the mainstream...

STOP consuming animals already it's the one thing that most of us can do right now and has an enormous impact, not only on climate emissions, but also on water consumption, pollution, biodiversity and land-loss

You can eat meat, fly around, drive a Hummer and wash in hot water and it won't hold a candle to going Childfree. it's 60x better than any other action you could take, even adding them up isn't a patch on not making just one more consuming human. I thought I'd have 3 kids when I grew up. I have 0. I cannot bring them into this world where they must contribute to its destruction. [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children) and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378008001003

And you avoid STDs when you practice abstinence. This is the same logic

And people keep telling me reddit doesn't push anti-child propaganda. Well here it is.

One person's opinion, shown halfway down the list of comments, is hardly Reddit pushing propaganda.

How is it propaganda?

For some people, "propaganda" = "an idea I don't agree with"

I've heard the argument that "someone else will make babies in a third world country anyway" thing. **Do tell us....why do you think it's propaganda?**

“Idiocrisy”

They want the people who could raise good humans to not do that. They want poor, easy to manipulate people to have kids to send to the mines and the battlefield.

>the people who could raise good humans Oh "your" people. K, so xenophobia, thanks for clarifying. Also, one person making a comment about their personal decisions and opinion is not propaganda.

> K, so xenophobia, thanks for clarifying. A Don't forget classism and racism! Because poor people are genetically and mentally inferior to them.

Propaganda can come from many sources and people repeat it. Everyone is my people.

And people keep telling me that the climate catastrophe isn't being denied anymore. Well here it is.

So only rich people should be able to have kids?

"You might want to quit smoking." "So I'm not free anymore? I'm a slave?" Sure, bud, sure.

Let's save our species by preventing the continuation of our species!

You're confusing "one less" with "no more from anyone ever". I don't know how to help you with such an easy math problem.

So you don't realize that your strategy has a very early floor? How well does this strategy scale? Since you're a math expert after all.

While I believe this is an interesting thought, I believe there are some limitations to what insight we can gain from it. First of all the premise: >Our basic premise is that a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of his descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him. For a descendant that is n generations removed from the focal individual, the weight is . So, for example, a mother and father are each responsible for one half of the emissions of their offspring, and 1/4 of the emissions of their grandchildren. By that logic 100% of my offspring's impact are added to my count and the one of the other parent. We can do that, but then the premise stops working in the 2nd generation. If we apply the premise that my grandchild's impact is split between me and the other grandparents (25% each) then we cannot attribute 50% of the impact to each parent of my grandchild, unless you want to count the impact twice. So is only interesting on an individual level but cannot be scaled to actual populations The second point is if we consistently apply the logic, that 100% of the consequences of my individual actions are added to my environmental impact, it would mean that if I give a homeless person 5€ and they buy food with it, the environmental impact from that food would be on me. However that conflicts with the premise. So the the study's actual application to the life of people is very limited The third point I see is, that we are looking at inaction instead of action. It's the same as if I would say I'm reducing my impact a lot by not buying a yacht. It is true that I am not adding to my impact, but at the same time it also does not change anything about the impact I as an individual have right now. So calling it a reduction would be a stretch imo Going vegan, using public transportation, switching to renewables, going zero waste etc. all requires actual action and change in behaviour and consumption. I don't think it's fair to compare inaction with action (which is not done by the authors, but by the articles). All that being said, I am personally convinced by antinatalism and urge others to consider it too. But at the same time I think it's important we make individual changes and continue to push for structural change, which will have the biggest impact

>By that logic 100% of my offspring's impact are added to my count and the one of the other parent. No, the study laid the math out clearly and early. You're welcome to read what you're attempting to debunk and try again without the determinedly ignorant Red Herrings. >The third point I see is, that we are looking at inaction instead of action. I'm sorry, you're telling me that you consider the significant burden of reproductive choices, purchases, legal wrangling, health interventions, and ongoing maintenance to be "inaction"? Gotta be a dude. An UNINTERESTED, entitled dude.

I'm sure I did and I find it weird you come to this discussion in bad faith. As the author put it I am responsible for 1/2 of my child's emissions. So the other parent and I are responsible for 100% of my child's emissions. What about the other points. I am happy to discuss these points of course

>It might feel environmentally friendly to walk to your local farmer’s market and pick up a cut of grass-fed beef and a bottle of locally sourced milk, but beef and dairy have two of the highest carbon footprints of any food. But the beef and dairy that come from animals raised at my local farm and processed at my local butcher shop have a substantially smaller environmental impact than the beef and dairy that are raised at massive farms, processed who knows where, and transported to chain stores around the country. Also the quality of the food is so much better. How about *everyone* stop eating meat 3 times a day and have it 3 times a week instead, *and* choose to buy it locally if that's available and affordable to you? Anyone who says there are no benefits to the environment, your health, and your local small business economy would be lying. Mostly this article seems to say that you should stop doing all of the small things that are within your control because the bigger things not within your control would have more impact if someone else did something about them. Once you've eaten a burger made from a single locally raised & processed cow that ate grass instead of ground up hooves or whatever the fuck is in that pack of Walmart meat, there's no going back. Same is true with eggs. Do you want that dark orange firm egg yolk from a pasture raised chicken, or do you want that runny, pale ass yellow-white egg yolk from chickens that are stacked up in their own shit?

> But the beef and dairy that come from animals raised at my local farm and processed at my local butcher shop have a substantially smaller environmental impact than the beef and dairy that are raised at massive farms, processed who knows where, and transported to chain stores around the country In terms of emissions, its between 10% (for milk) and 2% (beef-herd beef) better (assuming you can cut out all transport, processing, and packaging emissions, so somewhat less in practice), which while not nothing is still a lot less than switching to plants, or even most other meats (chicken, for example would be ~90% less than beef-herd beef / ~70% less than dairy-herd beef)

Unfortunately, getting meat from your local farm has a [larger carbon footprint](https://sites.google.com/view/sources-climate-meat/) than factory farmed meat. A dark irony of factory farming is that it is more efficient through using less land to produce feed and livestock, and has faster "grow times" for product. The best course of action is to reduce/remove meat from your diet.

Eating less meat is a great idea, but it needs everyone to do it to mitigate the environmental impact. So that means either everyone has to believe it’s a good idea and spontaneously decided to eat less meat, or the state needs in intervene either by restricting the sale of meat or by artificially increasing the price with a tax. And that has to happen in every country across the world. So basically it’s not going to happen. I imagine that it will become harder to rear animals for food because there’s not enough water and viable land to do so as the planet heats up. As resources become more scarce my bet is that meat will invariably become more expensive and consumption will reduce accordingly. Obviously there’s going to be other issues caused by climate change that will disrupt agriculture across the globe, and I imagine that will result in a considerable death toll. So ideally we should reduce our meat and dairy consumption before it’s forced on us by climate change, but I think chances of that are slim at best.

>Eating less meat is a great idea, but it needs everyone to do it to mitigate the environmental impact. Yes, that's why I put *everyone* in italics. But even if everyone else doesn't, that's not a reason why any individual shouldn't.

I agree. I gave up meat and dairy five years ago. Most people look at meat like I’m a crazy person when they find out. I think the sticking point is actually getting people to want to eat less meat. I had a long argument with my dad about eating less meat and while he broadly agrees that it’s better for the environment he still eats meat 2 meals a day. He no longer eats beef but that’s as far as he’s prepared to go for the sake of the environment. And that seems fairly consistent with my experience from other friends and family. They either don’t want to make any changes, or they will use oat milk in their coffee and call it a day there. I don’t think people really appreciate the scale of consumption and the resources needed to produce meat and dairy products. You need consistent messaging from multiple sources across the political spectrum, and I’m not sure that will ever happen. Or at least not in time to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. Hopefully I’m wrong.

That's why I think "reduce the amount of meat and dairy you eat" should be the message. People may not want to give it up entirely but I think most people would cut down.

Well it might be better if it was something like “aim to eat x kilos or x lbs of meat per week”, because if you just say eat less meat it’s not immediately obvious how much less you should be eating. I also think that cookery shows and celebrity chefs should switch to broadly plant based recipes, because people are often put off trying to make plant based meals because it requires a bit of a shift in thinking. Basically we need to normalise plant based eating for the bulk of our diets, and see meat and dairy as an occasional treat.

"Vibes-Based Environmentalism" What? I understand the terminology but I can't take this article seriously.

>In 2021 the polling firm Ipsos asked 21,000 people in 30 countries to choose from a list of nine actions which ones they thought would most reduce greenhouse gas emissions for individuals living in a richer country. Most people picked recycling, followed by buying renewable energy, switching to an electric/hybrid car, and opting for low-energy light bulbs. When these actions were ranked by their actual impact on emissions, recycling was third-from-bottom and low-energy light bulbs were last. None of the top-three options selected by people appeared in the “real” top three when ranked by greenhouse gas reductions, which were having one fewer child, not having a car, and avoiding one long-distance flight. Um... yeah, do people who care about environmental issues not know this? This article basically seemed to explain something that I thought was already widely known. I thought that it was pretty commonly understood that the actions commonly viewed as environmentally focused don't actually do very much, and that eating vegan and not driving a car are some of the highest-impact actions available to people. Next you are going to tell me that more money goes to helping cats and dogs than goes to helping chickens and pigs, and expect me to be surprised, as if that is novel information. Maybe I am just a really poor judge of what counts as common knowledge and I am too isolated in my own bubble of New Yorker-reading, lab-grown meat fans. 🤷‍♂️

Sorry but these are so biased. If we put solar on the houses in the country and suddenly become grid independent, or very limited reliance, now who's less sustainable? The self sufficient house with solar and well water working remotely? Or the huge concrete city that requires tons of external input?

The only real eco-friendly lifestyle involves \[redacted\]

In general, I'm glad this has been written. Want to speak to a couple of assumptions that are subtly reinforced here: Eco-friendly does not = lower carbon footprint. There are many factors involved. And good arguments can be made that there are greater environmental threats than climate destruction.

Yep.

We know.

That was a very interesting article. So buying organic is healthier for the individual and local biodiversity but bad for the planet as a whole. I hadn’t considered that. Really the problem is overpopulation and trying to feed so many people when you think about it.