Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5240 readers

378 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

470

Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It (sentientmedia.org)

submitted 10 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net

401 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

experts denying them

It's kinda wild to post "it's not that bad... studies" funded by corporate interests in /climate. It's always the same old denial lines served from the same ole' boiler plate. Do you also give BP the same benefit of the doubt too? Are the innovations of" clean coal" going to revive the industry so nothing has to change?

if that were true, it would be dying instead of dramatically improving in both margins, efficiency, and climate footprint in most countries.

The wildly ineffecient ineffecient industry has long been supported by goverment subsides.

If we decided to keep the cattle population without eating them, you might be surprised to note that it would be worse for the climate than eating the cattle we have.

The obvious answer is to stop breeding them. Their numbers are this high because they are treated as a commodity.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works -4 points 10 months ago

As I said to the other guy, accusing the large percent of studies that disagree with you of being false is bad-faith far-right bullshit, and we had enough of that in 2020 with the anti-vaxxers. I have sworn off EVER giving that style of bullshit any more respect than it deserves.

Do you also give BP the same benefit of the doubt too?

I never said "benefit of the doubt". You're the one picking research based on whether you like its results. I'm the one reading the articles and studies on both sides.

Actually, let me use your reference to show my point. Do you know who the BIGGEST opponent of farm subsidies is? FARMERS.

You tell me why, and we'll continue this discussion. Otherwise, you just showed your hand, and it's a 2-7 off-suit high card.

The obvious answer is to stop breeding them

Till when? In my country, the total methane impact from agriculture is only 20% higher than pre-colonial ecostasis. We will reach those numbers in 10 years. Are you saying my country needs to have LOWER methane emissions than it had 500 years ago all so we can support BP continuing to do whatever the fuck they want and still have a global temperature continue to rise? Because if the worst GHG footprint was my home country's agricultural industry, global warming wouldn't be a problem.

Which one of us is giving BP the benefit of the doubt, now? What percent of environmental spending are you really willing to do to reduce GHG emissions <5%?