• glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Half the world could switch to a plant-based diet and it would barely make a dent

    Our part is teeny tiny compared to corporations

    • PersonalDevKit@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      But who is buying the goods and services these corporations produce? Mysterious figures in the night, or humans?

      Greenwashing is a result of a change in consumer desire, not 100% what was wanted but a change non the less. If the people buying goods actually think before they buy and don’t just look at the lowest priced item then change will happen.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Many times people have no choice but to buy those goods due to years of monopolistic practices

        actually think before they buy and don’t just look at the lowest priced item then change will happen.

        When the choice is between saving the planet and eating and being able to afford rent, you can’t possibly blame someone for choosing the cheaper option.

        [Edit] also want to add that while I’m still eating meat, I fully support vegetarianism.

        • PersonalDevKit@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I see this argument a lot about choosing between saving the planet and eating and affording rent. Of course that person is barely surviving they aren’t making choices for their food. The same can not be said for the middle class and up.

          To instantly dismiss any argument that you as a person don’t have any responsibility in this, no matter how small, is ludicrous. We should all be doing all we can. Not blaming corporations but then still buying their products, eating their fast food, etc. Blame a corporation and then do something about it, like avoiding nestle products even if it means going without, especially for non essential items.

          • glimse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The demographic that can afford to make those changes, the middle class as you stated, have been a shrinking for decades due to wealth consolidation. They don’t make up the majority of people.

            I’m not absolving any one person, I’m saying their impact is so minimal that combined with every other individual they wouldn’t come close to corporate impact so it’s stupid to single them out.

            • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Not to mention, many people in that demographic are time-poor, even if they ostensibly have the money. It’s not like middle class people still have a stay at home parent to do all this emotional labor.

              I’ve been flexitarian for decades, before it was a term. But it takes a lot more thought and time to eat healthy without animal products.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Of course that person is barely surviving they aren’t making choices for their food. The same can not be said for the middle class and up.

            There is no “middle class.” There is only the working class, and the entire thing falls into that “barely surviving” category.

            Blame a corporation and then do something about it, like avoiding nestle products even if it means going without, especially for non essential items.

            Not only do boycotts not work, advocating for them is almost a bad thing because it only distracts people from advocating for the remedy that does work: enforcing antitrust law.

            And that brings me to my main point, which is that both “blame corporations” and “blame consumers” are overly simplistic and wrong. The real problem is the systems that create the circumstances that both the corporations and the consumers are operating in. We should really be asking ourselves questions like this:

            • Why is cheap food so often unsustainable, despite the fact that “sustainable” basically means “least costly” in the long run, by definition? The answer is that there’s a whole pile of subsidies and externalities that mean the full cost of the unsustainable food is being borne by somebody other than either the consumers or proverbial “big ag.”

            • Why do even people who are “barely surviving” so often end up driving to buy fast food? The answer isn’t just that they “can’t cook” or “don’t have time” or whatever; there are deeper reasons for it. They don’t know how to cook because the public school system seems to have mostly stopped offering home ec class. They don’t have time because the zoning code forces their home to be far away from both their job and their grocery store, which not only robs them of the time spent making car trips between them and the money spent owning a car in the first place, but also artificially incentivizes businesses with drive-throughs.

            Of course, now you might think I’m simplistically trying to blame the government, but nope. Why’d the zoning code get written the way it was? Well, that’s for a whole bunch of reasons (most of them racist, BTW), but among them was the influence of corporate entities like Standard Oil and GM.

            So now, taking all that shit I just wrote into consideration, what’s the bottom line? The bottom line is that the systems have to be changed, and that takes action from individuals and corporations and government – but mostly the latter, not because it’s the government’s “fault” but because government has the power to change laws. But even then, it’s not heavy-handed stuff like prohibiting eating meat or prohibiting driving; it’s stuff like ending subsidies, internalizing externalities (that’s what a carbon tax is for, BTW), and ending the failed Suburban Experiment by abolishing things like low-density zoning restrictions so that people can pop into the store for groceries on their walk home from work instead of having to make an onerous car trip to go “grocery shopping” or resorting to fast food.

            The “cheapest” or easiest option has to become the most sustainable option, such that people freely choose it without being coerced. That’s the only way any real change will ever happen.

            • PersonalDevKit@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This took me a while to digest, but thanks for the thorough answer.

              I agree that silly subsidies should be abolished and climate friendly subsidies should be enacted worldwide. However looking from the American lens you are talking in the change seems almost impossible. Democracy worldwide has been corrupted America being the largest example of this with “lobbyists”. How are these uneducated, time poor, malnutritioned people meant to make any change? Maybe I just have my doom and gloom face on today.

              In Australia we can barely stop our government from cutting down ancient forests to make woodchips. Let alone the 3 new coal mines they opened, and this is the climate concious party.

              Looking at all that I feel making personal changes is the only way I can personally stay motivated. At least I am doing what I can in the face of this seemingly impossible task.

    • notatoad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Food production is 35% of global greenhouse gases. Meat accounts for 60% of the emissions from food production. So yeah, if we cut global meat consumption in half it would absolutely make a dent.

      Blaming the corporations is just a convenient way of putting the responsibility on somebody else. You can’t eat beef and then blame the farmer for the emissions caused by cattle production. You can’t drive a big truck and then blame the oil companies for the emissions. You can’t fly around the world and then blame the airlines. Corporations are selling stuff to people. Their emissions look huge because they’re the aggregate emissions of millions of people.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not blaming the farmer, I’m blaming the megacorps that have control over the food supply. I’m blaming the lobbyists and corrupt politicians who push deregulation of industry.

        I’m blaming the 1% whose hoarding has left so many people struggling, forcing them to work against their own best interest.

        I said it in another comment, but you can’t blame someone for choosing to pay rent instead of buying eco-friendly products.

      • gowan@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s a study kicking around blaming the 1% for ~40% of the emissions which they determine by assigning the carbon footprint of their businesses to the individual. While Charles Koch has a bigger carbon footprint than most I don’t think it makes sense to suggest he’s responsible for all his energy company’s emissions since someone else uses that power.

        • CoderKat@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They said emissions.

          Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds

          https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study

          As for the rest of what they said:

          The entire system of food production, such as the use of farming machinery, spraying of fertilizer and transportation of products, causes 17.3bn metric tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, according to the research. This enormous release of gases that fuel the climate crisis is more than double the entire emissions of the US and represents 35% of all global emissions, researchers said.

          In case you’re curious about plants, they’re actually only 29%:

          The use of cows, pigs and other animals for food, as well as livestock feed, is responsible for 57% of all food production emissions, the research found, with 29% coming from the cultivation of plant-based foods. The rest comes from other uses of land, such as for cotton or rubber. Beef alone accounts for a quarter of emissions produced by raising and growing food.

          • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What this fails to account for is that a whole lot of land that produces beef can’t produce edible vegetables. It’s not so easy as flipping a switch.

        • gowan@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You misread that. Meat accounts for 60% of the global emissions of food production not 60% of the total.

    • gowan@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      That simply is not true. Cutting meat would absolutely make a difference.

      • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, sure. Whatever makes you sleep at night and keeps your overlords happy. Seriously, stop putting down your fellow men and start punching upwards. They are the problem, not people who eat meat.

        • gowan@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Stop pretending that you do not have the ability to make an impact. No one is punching down here. What I am doing is flatly stating that eating less meat will impact climate change which is something that seems to be supported by science.

          I get that you don’t want to change and you want this to be someone else’s fault but this is all of our faults and it is a problem we all need to confront.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It won’t. Meat production has almost no impact. Switch to plant based diet will have bigger impact.

        • gowan@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I thought that was implied that you would switch to plant based and it is incredibly inaccurate to say meat production has no impact on the climate.