UN C!imate Change Report

[Yppej]

So as usual things are worse than expected, and to avert catastrophe we must take more aggressive action to stop climate change from accelerating even more. One recommendation is everyone eat a plant based diet. Are you in?

[catherine]

"Yet public officials and private investors alike have so far shown little appetite for the massive upfront investments and aggressive social change it is likely to take to move the world away from its long reliance on coal, oil and gas." Washington Post

This is such a complex issue that certainly won't be addressed just by getting people to eat less meat, never mind no meat. The issues are deeply systemic: It's industrial farming practice more than the individual who wants to eat meat. If people would restrict meat-eating to only eating from farms that practice humane, regenerative farming methods, maybe the industry would have to adapt to consumer demands.

I was vegetarian for 10 years for ethical, health and environmental reasons. I eat meat now--only if it comes from one of the small, local providers. But I can afford the premiums costs. How many people are going to choose beef or chicken or pork that is twice as much as factory-farmed meat, as awful as that practice is? One of my arguments when I was vegetarian is that meat eating is more expensive then eating plant-based foods, but one of the things I learned from my discussions with my meat-eating friends eating meat is completely ingrained in culture, family, and hedonism, and there are so few people who buy into vegetarianism for those reasons.

I'm sure you have encountered the same resistance in discussions with your meat-eating friends, Jeppy. I think it comes down to, you can only change yourself. I think there are other aspects of climate change mitigation that will be easier to to sell to the public than trying to change how we/they eat.

So, yeah, aggressive social change as mentioned in the quote above. In my mental meanderings about what needs to be done, and the space between "everything's fine--it will work out" and "we have to aggressively start churning out renewable technologies"--my question always comes back to, this is a Morton's Fork until we can control growth. Growing more is not going to solve the problem. Wind turbines and solar panels are another industrial input that will generate its own problems in terms of land base and wildlife devastation.

Until we can look at the value of life in all its forms, and live accordingly, I'm not too optimistic that anything the UN says about climate change is going to do any good.

[Teacher Terry]

Considering that I only like 2 veggies the answer is no.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I like veggies a lot, but my diet is maybe closest to Mediterranean diet and that's not vegetarian.

From experts on the topic I've gotten that about 15% of global warming comes from animal agriculture. So that's not nothing, but it leaves the other 85%, which comes from extracting and burning fossil fuels. And that's what needs to be curtailed. Addressing the 15% without addressing that isn't enough.

So the ultimate goal is not burning fossil fuels let's say and maybe animal agriculture emissions should also be looked at, but 85% the former and 15% the latter. So we have to aggressively start churning out renewable technologies actually does seem to be expert opinion on how to get there. Basically switching the power grid to renewables (maybe with some nuclear) would do a lot and switching all household heating to electric etc.. This isn't to say that everyone believes in endless growth. When the IPCC itself discusses degrowth. But if the immediate limit is fossil carbon in the atmosphere then stop burning fossil fuels is kind of the point.

[catherine]

But if the immediate limit is fossil carbon in the atmosphere then stop burning fossil fuels is kind of the point.

Yes, but the how is as important as the why...

I didn't realize the IPCC report talked about degrowth, but I looked it up and they did, in a couple of places in the report.

"Coincidentally" on FB this video came up that is very relevant to this topic. Interesting discussion. About 20 minutes in length.

[ToomuchStuff]

I remember this and part of why it is so hard to get people to agree on things.


All this "save the planet stuff", the planet will survive, and this might just be a correction from the environment, slowing or reversing the population of man, to a more environmentally friendly amount.

We are no different then surplus deer populations, in the big picture.

[catherine]

I remember this and part of why it is so hard to get people to agree on things.


All this "save the planet stuff", the planet will survive, and this might just be a correction from the environment, slowing or reversing the population of man, to a more environmentally friendly amount.

We are no different then surplus deer populations, in the big picture.

If we were still living in the natural world, that would be true. But we are creating weapons of mass destruction of the planet with our overreach. We are out of balance. What we will get for our hubris will be the sad and unnecessary decimation of what took millennia to evolve to. It's such a damned waste.

[JaneV2.0]

I'm not in. I was a vegetarian for maybe six years, don't eat meat every day, and aim for locally-raised grass-fed beef. Also, I drive about 1000 miles a year (less lately), and made a choice not to reproduce.

[JaneV2.0]

I believe the planet will outlast us, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Yea I don't think it matters? The problem is just there is a whole lot of suffering between here and natural extinction. I mean it's already pretty bad now, it's living between crisises (power is now out a bunch of places due to *April* heatwaves, it's pretty miserable). Every year one dreads summer. Future generations, ah well they are F-ed, pretty much. They will live and die in hell, unfortunately that's also true for many alive now.