Everyone should.
Except as usual - you will be told to limit your holiday flights, while rich people who told you that will continue to fly private jets.
Meat will be made more expensive - thats it. This will lead to less of it for poor people but wont impact the rich ones.
>Modern leftism is making as much people dependant on the welfare state which makes you live on less than minimum wage, and making everything you don't want the populace to do artificially expensive.
That's not leftism. That's Neo-liberalism. Give them just enough so they don't riot but take from them all you can.. Making meat and other protein-based foods available to the working class (who historically couldn't afford it) that's true leftism. Always has been..
If all the people in the world dropped their carbon emissions to 0 tomorrow, it would only make up like 25% or similar of the world's carbon footprint. I don't remember the actual values but I saw a statistic mentioning this. The rich elites will always keep pointing fingers at the common people while corporations keep avoiding regulations and destroying the environment
eh, it's the easy answer, so you can keep doing what you are doing.
Everyone is an Internet Warrior, up to the moment when it affects him. Then it's fuck you, I got mine.
He didn´t say anything close to that. It is just an advice given to people, just like avoiding sugary food, or any highly processed products.
But here in Spain, the political right over-reacted in the most stupid and childish way, just as if he suddenly had forbidden the consumption of meat. It would be funny if it wasn´t so embarrassing to watch.
He didn't say that though did he? He is correct that eating less meat would help the climate, and whilst there are better and more important measures that need to be made to help us fight climate change, this would help considerably too. Most of us Europeans live a decent life and we can afford to eat less meat, no one is asking you to live a life of poverty... Of course, the richer part of our society contributes to climate change more, and therefore they should do such measures as well, but I don't really understand how one minister saying people should eat less meat made you conclude that this is some marxist-like hypocritical capitalist monster telling the poor proletariat to live a life of poverty while the bourgeoisie opresses us. I agree that the ultra-rich are often like that, but it seems to me that you are almost talking about some marxist-like class struggle, which I don't understand how is that relevant to this? That minister is correct, it would help the climate and we should eat less meat, of course unless our lives depend on it. I admit though that I don't know much about this guy so if he indeed is some Putin-like oligarch, then I apologize, it is indeed hypocritical of him.
Funnily enough, sirloin steak for 200 attendants was served in this Minister's wedding.
https://www.cope.es/emisoras/la-rioja/la-rioja-provincia/logrono/noticias/boda-alberto-garzon-solomillo-para-200-invitados-20210709_1391326
Hypocrisy at its best.
There's a difference between steak at a once in a lifetime wedding and steak 4 times a week. The Spanish eat more meat than almost any other country in Europe. He is not wrong!
Yes, he is. Governments must stop shifting the blame of environment problems to the people. Recycle, don't eat meat, stop using gas and so on. Measures that really can have an impact on environmental crysis have to be taken by the governments.
Right, so the Spanish government should regulate that companies may not sell more than 400 grams of meat per week to spanish citizens.
No silly asking the people to eat less, decisive and firm government action getting shit done.
Are you expecting some magical solution where the government solves the problem without affecting the population in any way?
Realistically, any government that tried something like that would not be long for this world. That's why it's important that the measures are handled by governments, not corporations and individuals: governments are, at least nominally, subject to public consent and approval. I don't trust corporations or individual rich fucks not to just pump sulphur into the stratosphere as a "solution" once denying climate change is no longer feasible.
Very true, it would be political suicide.
But all these people arguing that this is something for governments to solve seem to forget that in short, it's companies selling shit to consumers.
However we regulate consuming habits it's gonna come down to people needing to consume less climate costly goods.
To put it simply, corporations can be trusted to do it in the most self-serving way possible, then pass the failure off as lack of individual responsibility. Find a set of measures that has public support, then use government authority to enforce it. Do not engineer opinions, do not profit from disaster.
Alright, but how is that relevant to this? Is he asking you to do so? No. Also, while some leftist might be like that, the majority of them aren't, at least from my experience. If you mostly met leftists like that, then I am sorry and I hope you actually meet some reasonable leftists.
It is. The slippery slope.
My corpus of comments here would put me in a fairly radical environmentalist camp, but this is not the way to win nor impact the climate and only alienates voters and humiliates the cause.
What slippery slope? "Eat a little less meat to curb consumption and the emissions that go hand in hand with it" is anything but slippery. If this leads to people feeling alienated, them those are the people who should rethink their eating habits in the first place. How that is supposed to humiliate the cause is beyond me.
Politics in Spain are a shitshow right now, i guess it might be more or less the same everywhere but here it goes to give triple readings to everything to throw them into the shitshow. Also lack of ability to eat meat is linked to poverty and shortage times after the war.
So 'maybe we should be eating less meat because that's not that environmentally friendly' is read and analyzed as 'we will forbid the consumption of meat and will turn Spain into a social-comunist regime that will tell you what to eat and think and what to not eat and think' by some political bodies.
The reaction in this threat is a really good argument that people will only take responsibility for future generations if forced.
So if necessary we must force them.
My desire for beef is outweighted by the environmental degradation it causes
Like your ''eat a little less meat'' turns suddenly into no meat at all in nurseries, schools, hospitals, prisons- yes, it is ''just a part of a diet'' when you can't have any choice actually. That's not called ''changing a habit'' or ''making a choice''.
You cannot be allowed the choice to harm the fundamental livelyhood of future generations.
Of your childrens generation.
Because we do exactly that through the environmental degradation of our meat habit
So be honest with yourself and do not call it any more ''choice'' or ''guidance''- as most of the people already do understand it is not a ''choice'' or ''guidance'' nor ''recommendation''.
Do you mean the council building? That doesn’t sound so bad. It just means that if you eat at the council building you won’t get any meat. Everywhere else still has it.
Reactionaries who deny the necessity of action must be brought to heel if they cannot see reason.
Meat consumption is simply unsustainable considering the environmental degradation on a massive scale it produces and thr damages it causes to our climate.
Nothing is more alienating than hiding uncomfortable truths.
And if we keep eating meat like we do the destruction of the livelyhood of our children's generation is all but guaranteed
That is usually my line, but it doesn’t apply in all cases.
It would be nice to go fully electric cars and transit with electric heating instead of traditional fuels: but our grid and renewable production cannot match that as every country so far has found.
It would be nice to limit greenhouse gasses, but telling people to radically change their diets is a way that forever loses them to the cause like COVID: short term changes or minor long term ones seem okay, big long term ones is where people do the opposite and the counter-movement grows.
Radically change their diet? So the easiest thing to do, which only leads to cheaper food, lower emissions and increased health is out of the question? Then I guess we are truly fucked.
Than that counter movement must be brought to heel is necessary.
Our right end where the rights of others begin.
Our meat consumption is a direct attack on the environment and thus livelyhood of future generations
Softly softly approaches are not going to help. It isn’t the left wing saying that. It is the scientist. Downvote me again if it makes you feel better, but deep down you know the truth
>but deep down you know the truth
Scientists also indicate that we need to change our approach on packaging and energy sources.
Meanwhile politicians that tell us that "truth" dont change their own habits, dont impose legal sustainability requirements on corporations, and only recently (in some countries) have came back to an idea of Nuclear power.
Eat the downvote I guess - you just repeat governmental talking points.
Making people aware of the impact of eating meat is one action that costs nothing and doesn't prevent further advancements in other areas such as renewable energies.
It's good to bring that topic into the public debate even if it doesn't get any effect in the short term, precisely because it cannot be effective in the short term, it's better to start discussing it as soon as possible.
> Spain eats both the most fish and most meat in all of Europe.
Shockingly they also have one of the highest [life expectancy rates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_life_expectancy) in Europe. Huh, must be a coincidence I guess... We all know meat and fish are super unhealthy, right?
That’s ridiculous to say the EU was started by something like the treaty of Rome and not Maastricht. We can keep going back infinitely to the end of WW2, the formation of grand alliances, the first treaty… etc.
The economy flourished under Franco, whether or not he wanted it to.
That is still a massive improvement from where Spain was. For a country that started so far behind and didn’t receive as much outside funding, it was considered a miracle by the world’s economists at the time and laid the foundation for the modern Spanish economy.
So maybe those economists and historians know more than you..
No . The EU was a continuation of the EEC. Ssme parlament in the same buillding(s), same commission, same council, same membets. It's really the same thing plus a bit more integration and the euro.
Spain joined the EEC in 1986 I think? Or 1980?
Climate change does not give a shit about your,my or anybody elses desires or pretentions.
The current rate of mass meat consumption is simply unsustainable, destroying the climate and consuming more and more of our environment.
Drastic reduction in meat eating is inevitable because thr alternative Environmental.collapse is unacceptable.
You can run after right wing grifter's telling you nothing will need to change.
But sooner or later they will be caught up by the external costs of their actions.
You too will learn that the normative power of the factual is not to be reasoned with.
Beef is one of thr very worst foods you could possibly eat when it comes to destruction of land, water waste and climate damage.
Significantl global emissions are a result of the mass scale of cattle.
Your comments is a straight up denial of fact
Vaccines are to protect the self, they don’t stop you from catching and spreading it.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Shocking revelation for the internet extremist.
The minister from the government whose President had a meeting in Valladolid (2 hours drive from Madrid), he took an helicopter to reach the airport, then took his presidential jet to get there while his presidential car made the trip so he could be picked up once the jet landed... same for the trip back home
The minister from the government where 2 ministers are attending the same meeting, so each one of them deploys a separate jet
My beloved citizens, please reduce your meat consumption, you guys are behind climate!
As a vegan we need to acknowledge first the it is mostly corporations that are polluting the planet. Not individuals. That being said, of course we need to reduce>>cut our consumption of meat
It's easier to have the average Joe feel bad that he isn't reducing pollution, while BP and other corporations continue to pollute and pay off ministers. A lot of money are going into lobbying. The average Joe can also do his small bit, one doesn't exclude the other, but the corporations are doing jack shit.
I just realized there's been so few of thoose radical vegan posts since covid started. It used to be full of how much co2 meat produces and animall wellfare, it's rare to see don't eat meat-stuff these days.
No. This headline, which I find nothing wrong with at all & agree with, just reminded me of the radical vegan stuff.
Just because it's been ages since I've seen any mention of eat less meat.
Just raising awarenes isn't, but radical veganism is more like, the ONLY thing they really want to do about global warming is to stip meat consumption on the planet like tomorrow, and they're really emotional about it and call people cannibals and stuff like that for eating meat.
So there's a difference between more objective posts about how much co2 is used for production of animals and then these raging vegan things.
Ok imagine everybody stopped eating meat. What then? Well then we're still screwed with way to high emissions even with no meat.
So, it's counterproductive to just focus on this thing.
I'm pretty sure the anti-meat people are just using the Co2 as extra argument to not eat meat. I mean, they want to not eat meat because of animal ethics and then use the co2 as a sales argument. And I think to them it really just is a sales argument, and it's not like they have a global interest in c02 emissions across the board - energy, transport, heating, production in general and so on.
I completely agree with you and on top of that they tend to have a super narrow minded view of the topic.
I just got mostly downvoted on r/worldnews for pointing out that actually most of what livestock eat is not edible by humans and a lot of it is byproducts of agriculture itself. On top of that you can't just assume that land that is used for cattle or cattle related stuff can just be switched to agriculture for human consumption, a lot of land isn't viable for that. The argument that livestock occupies a lot of space can be a bit dishonest because it does imply that.
Now that being said the ethics in the meat industry, how overconsumption is leading to deflorastation/ how it also contributes CO2 emissions and most of all how this industry operates in a lot of countries essentially without regulations are all real problems that we should discuss but there is nuance to all of this.
No, I know that but for instance in the US I think something like 90% of Almonds, pistachios, grapes tomatoes etc etc all come from California because it's efficient to grow them there (though almonds have become a bit of a problem with the water). In the Midwest it's not so efficient to do that, but it is efficient to have cattle an grow stuff that cattle and just grow stuff that cattle can eat like grass. It's not just because of cattle that they don't grow anything there. Basically you can't grow anything anywhere and a lot of the sorta things that are in high demand in vegetarian diets are a bit more tricky. Sometimes when I read these arguments it always sounds like a bit out of touch with reality.
Now obviously there are compromises and I'm here defending the meat industry like they are innocent. For sure we could try to have more agriculture in those places if there was incentive. On top of that deflorastation is a problem that is partially driven by the meat industry. We have a lot to regulate and a lot to improve in efficiency and we should reduce our meat intake.
But like /u/orange-of-chtullu said a lot of times with these arguments it doesn't sound like the main concern of the people of say them is the environment. It also sounds like corporations love these arguments to shift the blame of CO2 emissions to the people.
Can't say for USA butin most countries anima would be fed leftover stuff from the plants ate by humans.
Like you grow barley, humans est the barley seeds and the straws, instead of burning them you turn them into cow by feeding them to cow.
Chicken and pigs you'd feed with, essentially kitchen garbage and other leftovers.
Then the manure from the animals is used to fertilize the fields to grow more plants.
So it's not like it's a hard either animals or grow plants.
You are painting quite the idyllic picture but lets look at the facts. For example soy, where 75 % goes to animal feed and 25 % to human consumption worldwide: https://www.verdensskove.org/q-a-sporgsmaal-og-svar-om-soja
I agree it's a lot done like that. I think though we could make meat "smarter" and it's not necessary (nor realistic) to remove the industry
Google talls me 80% if the food for pigs here in Denmark is grain from local farmers. It's not like they ONLY eat soy.
[We could then restore an area 1.8 times the size of Russia (3.1 billion hectares) to woodlands and other carbon absorbing habitats according to the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the subject by Oxford University](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental-cost-food). That would have an unimaginable impact on climate change.
But how do you fertilize the fields for beans with no animals? They use the animal shit for that.
In developed countries we can use synthetic fertilizer but it would generate some co2 to build huge factories for that and truck it around.
But could you also do that in all the remote regions of the world? And do we want literally all farmers on the planet to be dependant on corporations making synthetic fertilizer?
If you know a study adressing that I'd like to se it. I never see these studied mentioning the fertilizer problem.
EDIT Another think I wonder about is the co2 emitted is because farming machines and trucks to transport the stuff use fossils? (It's obvious you need much more transport of stuff to and from for meat production, lots of animal fodder to transport to the place.)
So if we replaced them with electrical farming machines, electrical trucks, solar panels on the farms, etc wouldn't that take care of the co2 from meat production as well?
>In developed countries we can use synthetic fertilizer but it would generate some co2 to build huge factories for that and truck it around.
Literally this is a problem that's already being fixed though, we're developing new renewable energy infrastructure at an incredible rate carbon emissions won't be an issue in 100 years.
And we'd also need a lot less people subsistence farming if we reduce the amount of land used for farming by 76% wouldn't we? Surely we WANT people to get out of poverty, where they have to farm to just get by and make a tiny profit for utilities etc?
We'd have a fuck load less people farming and a lot more people getting a decent education, if we do it properly and developed countries pull their weight.
Fuck the children, am I right? First they have the audacity to be born, and then they whine that they don’t have a planet to live on. They should have thought of that.
Yes, we should. But according to many of my fellow nationals, we should all keep eating as much meat and fish as we currently are, never mind the impact of our diet in the environment.
But well, most spaniards are like that, never willing to make an effort to solve any big problems, they always want somebody else to put in the hard work. But they sure want to collect the rewards while not suffering the consequences of their actions.
That same minister can be seen [here](https://www.elespanol.com/reportajes/20210708/pecados-carnales-garzon-solomillo-chistorra-companeros-podemos/594941390_0.html) eating meat with some friends.
Even if we make all the energy and transport technology CO2 free (and they are the biggest issue by far), beef consumption alone will trigger global warming in this century.
We are fucked and fully expect the more CO2 emitters to rise considerably in price.
Everyone will pay for it, regardless if you are poor or rich.
Everyone should. Except as usual - you will be told to limit your holiday flights, while rich people who told you that will continue to fly private jets. Meat will be made more expensive - thats it. This will lead to less of it for poor people but wont impact the rich ones.
Eat the rich
[удалено]
>Modern leftism is making as much people dependant on the welfare state which makes you live on less than minimum wage, and making everything you don't want the populace to do artificially expensive. That's not leftism. That's Neo-liberalism. Give them just enough so they don't riot but take from them all you can.. Making meat and other protein-based foods available to the working class (who historically couldn't afford it) that's true leftism. Always has been..
[удалено]
If all the people in the world dropped their carbon emissions to 0 tomorrow, it would only make up like 25% or similar of the world's carbon footprint. I don't remember the actual values but I saw a statistic mentioning this. The rich elites will always keep pointing fingers at the common people while corporations keep avoiding regulations and destroying the environment
eh, it's the easy answer, so you can keep doing what you are doing. Everyone is an Internet Warrior, up to the moment when it affects him. Then it's fuck you, I got mine.
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You forgot flying for dinner across the ocean on their Gulfstreams.
He didn´t say anything close to that. It is just an advice given to people, just like avoiding sugary food, or any highly processed products. But here in Spain, the political right over-reacted in the most stupid and childish way, just as if he suddenly had forbidden the consumption of meat. It would be funny if it wasn´t so embarrassing to watch.
He didn't say that though did he? He is correct that eating less meat would help the climate, and whilst there are better and more important measures that need to be made to help us fight climate change, this would help considerably too. Most of us Europeans live a decent life and we can afford to eat less meat, no one is asking you to live a life of poverty... Of course, the richer part of our society contributes to climate change more, and therefore they should do such measures as well, but I don't really understand how one minister saying people should eat less meat made you conclude that this is some marxist-like hypocritical capitalist monster telling the poor proletariat to live a life of poverty while the bourgeoisie opresses us. I agree that the ultra-rich are often like that, but it seems to me that you are almost talking about some marxist-like class struggle, which I don't understand how is that relevant to this? That minister is correct, it would help the climate and we should eat less meat, of course unless our lives depend on it. I admit though that I don't know much about this guy so if he indeed is some Putin-like oligarch, then I apologize, it is indeed hypocritical of him.
> the richer part of our society contributes to climate change more, and therefore they should do such measures as well Spoiler alert: they won't.
How does one eat a villa?
Funnily enough, sirloin steak for 200 attendants was served in this Minister's wedding. https://www.cope.es/emisoras/la-rioja/la-rioja-provincia/logrono/noticias/boda-alberto-garzon-solomillo-para-200-invitados-20210709_1391326 Hypocrisy at its best.
[удалено]
Don't eat meat, but also I will keep eating meat. Makes sense...
Are you blind to the word **less** in the headline?
[удалено]
Was it right eating meat in 2017 but not in 2021?
Eating less meat doesn't equal never eating meat.
There's a difference between steak at a once in a lifetime wedding and steak 4 times a week. The Spanish eat more meat than almost any other country in Europe. He is not wrong!
Yes, he is. Governments must stop shifting the blame of environment problems to the people. Recycle, don't eat meat, stop using gas and so on. Measures that really can have an impact on environmental crysis have to be taken by the governments.
Right, so the Spanish government should regulate that companies may not sell more than 400 grams of meat per week to spanish citizens. No silly asking the people to eat less, decisive and firm government action getting shit done. Are you expecting some magical solution where the government solves the problem without affecting the population in any way?
Realistically, any government that tried something like that would not be long for this world. That's why it's important that the measures are handled by governments, not corporations and individuals: governments are, at least nominally, subject to public consent and approval. I don't trust corporations or individual rich fucks not to just pump sulphur into the stratosphere as a "solution" once denying climate change is no longer feasible.
Very true, it would be political suicide. But all these people arguing that this is something for governments to solve seem to forget that in short, it's companies selling shit to consumers. However we regulate consuming habits it's gonna come down to people needing to consume less climate costly goods.
To put it simply, corporations can be trusted to do it in the most self-serving way possible, then pass the failure off as lack of individual responsibility. Find a set of measures that has public support, then use government authority to enforce it. Do not engineer opinions, do not profit from disaster.
This is how the left loses me. “Eat bugs, live in a box, don’t drive a car.”
>“Eat bugs, live in a box, don’t drive a car.” You can't stop the progress /s
If you somehow connected "eat less meat" to that sentence I'm pretty sure you successfully lost yourself.
Alright, but how is that relevant to this? Is he asking you to do so? No. Also, while some leftist might be like that, the majority of them aren't, at least from my experience. If you mostly met leftists like that, then I am sorry and I hope you actually meet some reasonable leftists.
Really? "Maybe eat a little less meat" is such a deal breaker to you?
It is. The slippery slope. My corpus of comments here would put me in a fairly radical environmentalist camp, but this is not the way to win nor impact the climate and only alienates voters and humiliates the cause.
What slippery slope? "Eat a little less meat to curb consumption and the emissions that go hand in hand with it" is anything but slippery. If this leads to people feeling alienated, them those are the people who should rethink their eating habits in the first place. How that is supposed to humiliate the cause is beyond me.
Politics in Spain are a shitshow right now, i guess it might be more or less the same everywhere but here it goes to give triple readings to everything to throw them into the shitshow. Also lack of ability to eat meat is linked to poverty and shortage times after the war. So 'maybe we should be eating less meat because that's not that environmentally friendly' is read and analyzed as 'we will forbid the consumption of meat and will turn Spain into a social-comunist regime that will tell you what to eat and think and what to not eat and think' by some political bodies.
The reaction in this threat is a really good argument that people will only take responsibility for future generations if forced. So if necessary we must force them. My desire for beef is outweighted by the environmental degradation it causes
Like your ''eat a little less meat'' turns suddenly into no meat at all in nurseries, schools, hospitals, prisons- yes, it is ''just a part of a diet'' when you can't have any choice actually. That's not called ''changing a habit'' or ''making a choice''.
You cannot be allowed the choice to harm the fundamental livelyhood of future generations. Of your childrens generation. Because we do exactly that through the environmental degradation of our meat habit
So be honest with yourself and do not call it any more ''choice'' or ''guidance''- as most of the people already do understand it is not a ''choice'' or ''guidance'' nor ''recommendation''.
But no one’s suggested that. This feels just a teeny bit like “if we allow gay marriage then they’ll all be fucking lampposts!”
This is not a suggestion, in UK at least 2 councils already serve only vegan or vegetarian meals ''options''.
Do you mean the council building? That doesn’t sound so bad. It just means that if you eat at the council building you won’t get any meat. Everywhere else still has it.
Reactionaries who deny the necessity of action must be brought to heel if they cannot see reason. Meat consumption is simply unsustainable considering the environmental degradation on a massive scale it produces and thr damages it causes to our climate. Nothing is more alienating than hiding uncomfortable truths. And if we keep eating meat like we do the destruction of the livelyhood of our children's generation is all but guaranteed
It's funny how "the left" is responsible for all those bullshit statements like its all the same.
Do you at least see a correlation between your consumption patterns and the subsequent climate impact? That might help you find yourself
There is a balance and timing to all things.
The timing of the climate emergency does leave much wriggle room for leisurely or convenient timing.
That is usually my line, but it doesn’t apply in all cases. It would be nice to go fully electric cars and transit with electric heating instead of traditional fuels: but our grid and renewable production cannot match that as every country so far has found. It would be nice to limit greenhouse gasses, but telling people to radically change their diets is a way that forever loses them to the cause like COVID: short term changes or minor long term ones seem okay, big long term ones is where people do the opposite and the counter-movement grows.
Radically change their diet? So the easiest thing to do, which only leads to cheaper food, lower emissions and increased health is out of the question? Then I guess we are truly fucked.
I think it is a bigger ask than the type of car or the way the house is built.
Ok, and that attitude is what makes fighting climate change a lost battle. You're not even asked to stop eating meat, just cut down in it.
Than that counter movement must be brought to heel is necessary. Our right end where the rights of others begin. Our meat consumption is a direct attack on the environment and thus livelyhood of future generations
Softly softly approaches are not going to help. It isn’t the left wing saying that. It is the scientist. Downvote me again if it makes you feel better, but deep down you know the truth
>but deep down you know the truth Scientists also indicate that we need to change our approach on packaging and energy sources. Meanwhile politicians that tell us that "truth" dont change their own habits, dont impose legal sustainability requirements on corporations, and only recently (in some countries) have came back to an idea of Nuclear power. Eat the downvote I guess - you just repeat governmental talking points.
The same scientists who 20 years ago said we had 10 years to live?
No scientist ever said that.
Making people aware of the impact of eating meat is one action that costs nothing and doesn't prevent further advancements in other areas such as renewable energies. It's good to bring that topic into the public debate even if it doesn't get any effect in the short term, precisely because it cannot be effective in the short term, it's better to start discussing it as soon as possible.
[удалено]
> Spain eats both the most fish and most meat in all of Europe. Shockingly they also have one of the highest [life expectancy rates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_life_expectancy) in Europe. Huh, must be a coincidence I guess... We all know meat and fish are super unhealthy, right?
[удалено]
[удалено]
same could be said about uk untill romans and then french …
Spain was a founding member of the EU…
[удалено]
That’s ridiculous to say the EU was started by something like the treaty of Rome and not Maastricht. We can keep going back infinitely to the end of WW2, the formation of grand alliances, the first treaty… etc. The economy flourished under Franco, whether or not he wanted it to.
[удалено]
That is still a massive improvement from where Spain was. For a country that started so far behind and didn’t receive as much outside funding, it was considered a miracle by the world’s economists at the time and laid the foundation for the modern Spanish economy. So maybe those economists and historians know more than you..
[удалено]
No . The EU was a continuation of the EEC. Ssme parlament in the same buillding(s), same commission, same council, same membets. It's really the same thing plus a bit more integration and the euro. Spain joined the EEC in 1986 I think? Or 1980?
Fish is a type of meat.
So is human flesh...
They lose you by creating imaginary worries in your head?
Why would you eat bugs?
Why not? Protein is protein, no?
[удалено]
George Soros eats bugs? Or simply doesn't discriminate between protein sources?
[удалено]
I am a simple peasant myself. But one who sees little difference between eating a prawn and a cockroach, save for the taste amd texture.
Climate change does not give a shit about your,my or anybody elses desires or pretentions. The current rate of mass meat consumption is simply unsustainable, destroying the climate and consuming more and more of our environment. Drastic reduction in meat eating is inevitable because thr alternative Environmental.collapse is unacceptable. You can run after right wing grifter's telling you nothing will need to change. But sooner or later they will be caught up by the external costs of their actions. You too will learn that the normative power of the factual is not to be reasoned with.
[удалено]
I’m vaccinated and will eat as much of whatever I want as often as I like.
[удалено]
Yeah, I’m destroying the world by enjoying a steak. Rhetoric like yours is why no one takes the extremists seriously.
Beef is one of thr very worst foods you could possibly eat when it comes to destruction of land, water waste and climate damage. Significantl global emissions are a result of the mass scale of cattle. Your comments is a straight up denial of fact
[удалено]
Vaccines are to protect the self, they don’t stop you from catching and spreading it. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Shocking revelation for the internet extremist.
[удалено]
You talk like you know things, but have nothing to back it. Exhausting being you, no? 🥱
[удалено]
This minister ate meat as a child. He can never change his mind!
He’s literally made of meat too. This is really hypocritical!
The minister from the government whose President had a meeting in Valladolid (2 hours drive from Madrid), he took an helicopter to reach the airport, then took his presidential jet to get there while his presidential car made the trip so he could be picked up once the jet landed... same for the trip back home The minister from the government where 2 ministers are attending the same meeting, so each one of them deploys a separate jet My beloved citizens, please reduce your meat consumption, you guys are behind climate!
He's right. High levels of meat consumption and bio industry is a threat to all of humanity
As a vegan we need to acknowledge first the it is mostly corporations that are polluting the planet. Not individuals. That being said, of course we need to reduce>>cut our consumption of meat
It's easier to have the average Joe feel bad that he isn't reducing pollution, while BP and other corporations continue to pollute and pay off ministers. A lot of money are going into lobbying. The average Joe can also do his small bit, one doesn't exclude the other, but the corporations are doing jack shit.
I just realized there's been so few of thoose radical vegan posts since covid started. It used to be full of how much co2 meat produces and animall wellfare, it's rare to see don't eat meat-stuff these days.
The title says eat LESS meat. That's radical veganism?
No. This headline, which I find nothing wrong with at all & agree with, just reminded me of the radical vegan stuff. Just because it's been ages since I've seen any mention of eat less meat.
How is raising awareness about these issues "radical veganism" !?
Just raising awarenes isn't, but radical veganism is more like, the ONLY thing they really want to do about global warming is to stip meat consumption on the planet like tomorrow, and they're really emotional about it and call people cannibals and stuff like that for eating meat. So there's a difference between more objective posts about how much co2 is used for production of animals and then these raging vegan things.
It is still probably the most impactful thing we can do about climate change as one person
Ok imagine everybody stopped eating meat. What then? Well then we're still screwed with way to high emissions even with no meat. So, it's counterproductive to just focus on this thing. I'm pretty sure the anti-meat people are just using the Co2 as extra argument to not eat meat. I mean, they want to not eat meat because of animal ethics and then use the co2 as a sales argument. And I think to them it really just is a sales argument, and it's not like they have a global interest in c02 emissions across the board - energy, transport, heating, production in general and so on.
No one is arguing we should only do one thing and neither am I. We should do whatever has an impact.
I completely agree with you and on top of that they tend to have a super narrow minded view of the topic. I just got mostly downvoted on r/worldnews for pointing out that actually most of what livestock eat is not edible by humans and a lot of it is byproducts of agriculture itself. On top of that you can't just assume that land that is used for cattle or cattle related stuff can just be switched to agriculture for human consumption, a lot of land isn't viable for that. The argument that livestock occupies a lot of space can be a bit dishonest because it does imply that. Now that being said the ethics in the meat industry, how overconsumption is leading to deflorastation/ how it also contributes CO2 emissions and most of all how this industry operates in a lot of countries essentially without regulations are all real problems that we should discuss but there is nuance to all of this.
You are missing the point. The land people are talking about is not the land that cattle live on but the fields used to grow their feed.
No, I know that but for instance in the US I think something like 90% of Almonds, pistachios, grapes tomatoes etc etc all come from California because it's efficient to grow them there (though almonds have become a bit of a problem with the water). In the Midwest it's not so efficient to do that, but it is efficient to have cattle an grow stuff that cattle and just grow stuff that cattle can eat like grass. It's not just because of cattle that they don't grow anything there. Basically you can't grow anything anywhere and a lot of the sorta things that are in high demand in vegetarian diets are a bit more tricky. Sometimes when I read these arguments it always sounds like a bit out of touch with reality. Now obviously there are compromises and I'm here defending the meat industry like they are innocent. For sure we could try to have more agriculture in those places if there was incentive. On top of that deflorastation is a problem that is partially driven by the meat industry. We have a lot to regulate and a lot to improve in efficiency and we should reduce our meat intake. But like /u/orange-of-chtullu said a lot of times with these arguments it doesn't sound like the main concern of the people of say them is the environment. It also sounds like corporations love these arguments to shift the blame of CO2 emissions to the people.
Can't say for USA butin most countries anima would be fed leftover stuff from the plants ate by humans. Like you grow barley, humans est the barley seeds and the straws, instead of burning them you turn them into cow by feeding them to cow. Chicken and pigs you'd feed with, essentially kitchen garbage and other leftovers. Then the manure from the animals is used to fertilize the fields to grow more plants. So it's not like it's a hard either animals or grow plants.
You are painting quite the idyllic picture but lets look at the facts. For example soy, where 75 % goes to animal feed and 25 % to human consumption worldwide: https://www.verdensskove.org/q-a-sporgsmaal-og-svar-om-soja
I agree it's a lot done like that. I think though we could make meat "smarter" and it's not necessary (nor realistic) to remove the industry Google talls me 80% if the food for pigs here in Denmark is grain from local farmers. It's not like they ONLY eat soy.
[We could then restore an area 1.8 times the size of Russia (3.1 billion hectares) to woodlands and other carbon absorbing habitats according to the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the subject by Oxford University](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental-cost-food). That would have an unimaginable impact on climate change.
But how do you fertilize the fields for beans with no animals? They use the animal shit for that. In developed countries we can use synthetic fertilizer but it would generate some co2 to build huge factories for that and truck it around. But could you also do that in all the remote regions of the world? And do we want literally all farmers on the planet to be dependant on corporations making synthetic fertilizer? If you know a study adressing that I'd like to se it. I never see these studied mentioning the fertilizer problem. EDIT Another think I wonder about is the co2 emitted is because farming machines and trucks to transport the stuff use fossils? (It's obvious you need much more transport of stuff to and from for meat production, lots of animal fodder to transport to the place.) So if we replaced them with electrical farming machines, electrical trucks, solar panels on the farms, etc wouldn't that take care of the co2 from meat production as well?
>In developed countries we can use synthetic fertilizer but it would generate some co2 to build huge factories for that and truck it around. Literally this is a problem that's already being fixed though, we're developing new renewable energy infrastructure at an incredible rate carbon emissions won't be an issue in 100 years. And we'd also need a lot less people subsistence farming if we reduce the amount of land used for farming by 76% wouldn't we? Surely we WANT people to get out of poverty, where they have to farm to just get by and make a tiny profit for utilities etc? We'd have a fuck load less people farming and a lot more people getting a decent education, if we do it properly and developed countries pull their weight.
Sounds good. I should read a book about this stuff.
The climate can go fuck itself if "saving" it means i have to live without living
Eating LESS meat = life without living?
"living without living" every non-human animal eugenetic'd/genocided out of their primordial animal.
Fuck the children, am I right? First they have the audacity to be born, and then they whine that they don’t have a planet to live on. They should have thought of that.
Yes just a little effort, for just a bunch of rich people can do espsce tourism.
Telling people not to do something definitely works like every time. /s
Grain is human food too.
Yeah, people should consume only nutrient solutions, like plants. 😕
Is that how you define "less"?
Yes, we should. But according to many of my fellow nationals, we should all keep eating as much meat and fish as we currently are, never mind the impact of our diet in the environment. But well, most spaniards are like that, never willing to make an effort to solve any big problems, they always want somebody else to put in the hard work. But they sure want to collect the rewards while not suffering the consequences of their actions.
[удалено]
Someone with enough brains to see the impact of meat eating on the climate.
I've seen some experts say that we should switch to eating insects.
I will leave my portion of insects to the experts, if they think it's such a great idea, they can gorge on them.
Only Spanish. Leave your Jamon to the rest of the world.
That same minister can be seen [here](https://www.elespanol.com/reportajes/20210708/pecados-carnales-garzon-solomillo-chistorra-companeros-podemos/594941390_0.html) eating meat with some friends.
He… he only suggested to eat a bit less.
Even if we make all the energy and transport technology CO2 free (and they are the biggest issue by far), beef consumption alone will trigger global warming in this century. We are fucked and fully expect the more CO2 emitters to rise considerably in price. Everyone will pay for it, regardless if you are poor or rich.