Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

imo the best approach to the meat-eating issue would be to get people to accept the idea that eating LESS meat is a great idea, as opposed to pushing everyone to adopt vegetarianism or veganism straight off. But, given the meat-centered menus of the fast food industry and their ceaseless advertising, any counter offensive would require an equally massive weight of propaganda for a healthier diet emphasizing plant-based foods and including much smaller amounts of animal-based foods.

That approach allows individuals to make good choices without feeling like they are making huge sacrifices and renouncing cherished pleasures.

xpost i think the best baby step is just to reduce the number of times that you eat meat. if you're eating meat every single day, maybe start with reducing it to 3-4 times a week, or just reducing the portions.

bunch of xposts, maybe not relevant anymore:
No, I'm sorry, "waste so much time" was very badly put, and in fact a misrepresentation of the film, which doesn't advocate not reducing carbon emissions, just questions why we -- or at least major env groups whose mission is to reduce environmental harm -- don't also advocate reducing animal agriculture's effects on the world. Of course you're right, the cultural reasons are sadly very obvious. And yes, re: grass-fed beef, the saddest part of the doc is when it breaks down how impossible it would be to switch to grass-fed on any kind of mass scale in terms of sheer land availability (and, iirc, it might actually be worse for the environment? or maybe just uses more water than factory farmed, I can't quite remember).

I have cut my red meat consumption down to once a week (gotta have that burger). I also recycle, and I am 100% sure neither will ultimately matter.

And as GWB said, "I'll be gone."

ok ty! xps

honestly do not understand how anyone can eat beef today.

but you still understand people murdering one another, right?

an uncomfortable truth that no one ever wants to talk about is that the fears about environmentalism leading to big lifestyle changes, increased prices, bigger govt, etc are actually warranted in some respects.

for example: if we don't take serious action on climate change ASAP (and it's already too late to prevent bad stuff from happening, as you've no doubt heard from your depressed friends), there will inevitably be more government in people's lives. that's what happens when disasters occur, and an ever-warming world is a world of persistent disaster. one of the purposes of government is to protect people and provide a system of justice, and danger and instability and injustice will only be increasing in a world with food shortages, climate refugees, droughts, underwater Florida, and resource wars.

a better example, probably, is the water rationing in california that was announced yesterday. if california would have heeded the calls for a reasonable policy over the past 50 years, that wouldn't be happening. but instead politicians, being human beings, prioritized the short-term over the long-term, and now the govt is forced to alter californians lifestyles in a very tangible way.

it's just a terrible, terrible irony, that so many conservatives are terrified of the govt intruding in their lives, yet by fighting climate change action tooth-and-nail they're virtually guaranteeing that future for themselves.

and then there's the fact that putting a price on carbon (which we MUST do, due to inaction the last several decades) would most likely alter eating habits, if the price applied to agriculture as well. ten calories of fossil fuel energy go into every calorie of food that we eat, at least in the united states. putting a price on carbon would make the price of meat increase, which would FORCE many people to reduce their meat consumption. that, in my mind, is an inevitability brought upon by our failure to address climate change proactively. again, it's increased govt. intervention brought upon by a lack of action which is, in turn, largely motivated by fear of govt. intervention. it's a circle of ironic bullshit.

obligatory disclaimer: if anyone is taking me seriously just take it all with a grain of salt. many of you know i work for a prominent environmental organization, but i don't work on these kinds of issues at all. i WANT to, but i don't, at least not right now. you might think that we all get some sort of training on climate change and that we're all experts or something and up to date with the latest climate change research, but that's not the case at all. so i probably know as much about this stuff as the crazy old lady with electric white hair that keeps staring at you in your local co-op, or whatever.

actually we don't need to, individual is nothign compared to the corporate pollution being done, and it's something env orgs refuse to go after: the corps.

as in, the beef corps. its the cows and their feed farms that are destroying our planet and forests.

xp
well-informed co-op ladies aside, I think the logic of your preceding post is irrefutable!

a better example, probably, is the water rationing in california that was announced yesterday. if california would have heeded the calls for a reasonable policy over the past 50 years, that wouldn't be happening. but instead politicians, being human beings, prioritized the short-term over the long-term, and now the govt is forced to alter californians lifestyles in a very tangible way.

My in-laws live in California and I was shocked to see people watering their lawns in the middle of the day when I was there in February. Also relevant is that I believe none of those restrictions apply to agriculture...which is probably necessary given how dependent the world is on CA agriculture

do we have a thread devoted to the death of the oceans? just found out about microbeads and I hate everything right now

I think the logic of your preceding post is irrefutable!

thanks, but i doubt it's true. i haven't really read much on what the implementation of a price on carbon would do to food prices. it's inevitable that it would lead to an increase in the cost of meat (and other foods), but maybe not to a degree that would force significant changes in meat consumption (in fact, i'd guess that they'd design the carbon tax with the goal of NOT changing people's food consumption choices too much). i've been pretty depressed over the last few months so i'm not exactly a source of reliable wisdom right now, not that i ever was.

People will give up meat right after fossil fuels.

it's juuuuust beneath it on the to-do list!

but you still understand people murdering one another, right?

― Giant Purple Wakerobin (Aimless), Thursday, April 2, 2015 12:51 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tbf this is the only real solution to global warming

Good news is that climate change will lead to that!

defeatist and not true

religion is playing a part in overpopulation though

let's start by killing you

tsk tsk, dnktt

a glimmer of hope - i'm chatting with a few grist people and they don't think that a carbon price would have a significant impact on meat consumption.

and thinking about it, it's a moot point anyway because i can't conceive of a politician supporting a bill that curtails meat eating in any way. australia, during their short carbon pricing stint, excluded the agricultural (and transportation) sectors.

I suspect religion's role in overpopulation is actually quite small, compared to advances in medicine and production.

one more thing worth reading on food/environment:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

I meant "it's just a terrible, terrible irony, that so many conservatives are terrified of the govt intruding in their lives, yet by fighting climate change action tooth-and-nail they're virtually guaranteeing that future for themselves" seemed irrefutable to me. like you said, disasters will necessitate increased role for gov't

oh, well THAT is irrefutable! :)

religion (abramics) play a HUGE role in the west's attitude to nature. The Bible tells man it can do what it likes to nature if it's in his own interest. Even in secular people these attitudes to nature found in the Bible, Hebrew, and Koran linger strongly.

I refute it thus! (bangs a walking stick against the pavement, glowers triumphantly)

xposts unless, of course, it leads to failed states, which would then be even more ironic because the same people who feared govt. intrusion would be found wishing for more of a govt. presence

in conclusion, *dives off a cliff*

I suppose the Assyrians, Hittites, Phonecians & Romans were highly mindful and reticent in their relationship with nature, going out of their way not to disrupt the balance of ecosystems. It took that nasty Bible to undo all their good work in that direction.

The Bible tells man it can do what it likes to nature if it's in his own interest.

of course, there are also ways to interpret it that lead to a pro-environment conclusion. my dad told me the other day that when people ask him what i do, he says "zach follows Genesis chapters 5 through 7, and tends the garden". putting aside that the garden tending part is in Ch. 2 (i believe), and also how frustrating it is that he won't just tell people what i do because he's embarrassed to tell his conservative friends who i work for, it does demonstrate that some religious people apparently find environmental inspiration in the bible. bill mckibben - a goddamn saint if one ever existed - is a really prominent example of that.

ty for that WaPo link Karl, that was exactly the kind of stuff I was wondering about w/r/t Cowspiracy. Mattresslessness, you might also want to check that out in terms of picking which meat to eat less of.

Man lentils are amazing -- someone should try to rebrand them so they're as hip as quinoa and kale

state of the art teaphuck ny times / wash post / j.chait etc. comment section trolling lately seems to be saying how awesome a warmer world will be. who pays these people?

Koch bros iirc

yes karl thanks for that link it was very enlightening!

lol yeah lentils are the best and cheap as hell

i am confident after the Katrina and Sandy "responses" that our Guvmint will handle an ongoing extinction event just fine.

To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go to extinction with the government you've got, not the government you wish you had.

LOL @ ALEC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/05/this-conservative-group-is-tired-of-being-accused-of-climate-denial-and-is-fighting-back/

more on vegetarianism/environment, this time with a focus on water:

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/10/8382165/the-environmental-case-for-eating-vegetarian-in-one-sentence

very good piece. somewhat confusingly on the almond issue, I just read this Mark Bittman piece linked to in the CA drought thread: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/making-sense-of-water.html?_r=0

heheh

But according to estimates by the Public Policy Institute of California, more water was used to grow almonds in 2013 than was used by all homes and businesses in San Francisco and Los Angeles put together. Even worse, most of those almonds are then exported — which means, effectively, that we are exporting water. Unless you’re the person or company making money off this deal, that’s just nuts.

http://i.imgur.com/ZbTlLWM.jpg

bittman knew that almonds aren't really nuts, but he couldn't resist

I seed what he did there

though agriculture is a surprisingly minuscule part of the state’s gross domestic product

I did not know this. Everything I've ever learned about american agriculture has been super confounding

CA has the largest GDP in the country

suck it, Texas

I was surprised not at the size of CA's GDP but rather that agriculture isn't a big part of it (only 2% according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California#Sectors). Seeing the other sectors' percentages, I am less surprised now but still.

how about a ridiculous thought experiment, because hey it's tuesday afternoon.

imagine we colonize another planet. the planet is earthlike, except that it's unoccupied and pristine and isn't a shithole. (don't worry about the practicalities of space colonization. just imagine it's almost like an earth-annex, or a newly discovered continent, that's easy to get to and develop)

do you think that we'd colonize in a deliberately sustainable way, net-zero energy consumption if possible, taking care not to obliterate local biodiversity and to avoid overpopulation? or do you think we'd just trash it? would the answer change if there were numerous new planets to colonize?

Use it up, find another.