• FriendBesto@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    You know what would really help? More so then cutting actual food intake?

    How about halfing the number of golf courses? Stop using grass and let more natural plants for lawns, stop the use of private planes and also just kill or reduce the Cruise ship industry to a miniscule amount. Plus other shit rich people use that has a disproportionate huge carbon footprint. Find it funny that I never see the news --or rich, holier than thou morons-- pushing for this. Nah, they go after our food. Rich people do not care, they can eventually make beef the price of caviar per weight? Because fuck you and all of us. Why? Well they do not care. They can always pay. Easily.

    For example: Bill Gates is the largest farm land owner in the USA now, he and his buddies and his rich clients will all get all the natural milk, beef, pork, chickens, lambs, veal they can eat. You? Eat lentils and maybe crickets or give his lab grown biomilq, to your kids or eat his lab meat, like a good and compliant serf. Don’t think, just comply and consume. 'Cause I am sure he ain’t touching the stuff himself or is his family. He is not going to be the long term guinea pig. I wouldn’t either.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/03/13/biomilq-artificial-breast-milk

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-backed-lab-grown-195311408.html

    Carbon footprint of food production in the USA is 9% of total. Beef is about 3% of total. So 9 for both beef and crops.

    Just the cruise ship industry, for example, is about 3.3% of the world’s total carbon footprint. Let’s kill that. Also private jet use. They can fly Business class, if they are not hypocrites.

    • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I couldn’t help but think there’s no way luxury cruise ships is 3% of global carbon emissions

      Was this your source? https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/maritime-sustainability

      It says “cruise ships and other maritime vessels” which isn’t cleared up anywhere in the article. You have to remember that if this includes container ships it’s fully expected, we all buy shit from across the world all the time.

      This article says the shipping industry is 3%: https://sinay.ai/en/how-much-does-the-shipping-industry-contribute-to-global-co2-emissions/

      So either greenmatch is intentionally rage baiting everyone or they both emit 3% each, sus.

      I really hate misinformation. It’s very easy to rally and hate on the rich but it would be very funny to me if that 3% you said to “get rid of” means you would have to completey change your consumer habits and not only just affect “the rich”

      But yes regardless don’t mistake my comment for defending luxury cruise ships.

    • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      9 months ago

      I mean, we can do all of those things and reduce our meat intake. They’re not mutually exclusive. How about we encourage people to do everything they can, rather than gate-keeping solutions?

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Considering every 100 pounds you add to your vehicle you reduce fuel economy by 2%, I wonder how much less CO2 we’d produce if everyone got to a healthy BMI.

      • ComfortableRaspberry@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        At least for me these articles are a bit annoying since it seems that businesses world wide give a shit about the consequences of their actions but news outlets decided to pin the issue on the consumer.

        Don’t get me wrong. I think consumers are at least partially in charge when it comes to decisions about their consuming behavior. And reducing the meat intake is something that is not too hard and can improve the health for some people. But propagating this as the solution to our climate problem and on top not looking into the effect of lower income on nutrition / eating behavior makes me angry. The article just briefly mentions that the government has no success in influencing the prices through taxes.

        At least here in Germany meat is so unbelievably cheap that it’s very understandable people got used to eating it on a daily base. And it’s hard to change this without businesses like supermarkets supporting this with price changes (meat up vegetables down) and an increase in minimal income since environmentally friendly food is currently more expensive than “garbage food”.

        • baru@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          And it’s hard to change this without businesses like supermarkets supporting this

          A crazy amount of the EU budget goes towards subsidizing farming. Enough of that goes towards the meat industry. It’s not supermarkets that enable this to be cheap. It’s loads of things. Huge subsidies, regulations enabling intense farming, governments giving subsidies in various ways, then there’s also a bit about supermarkets.

          • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah, let’s f stop those subsidies for instance. I don’t see why taxes should be used to destroy the environment in such a clearcut way.

        • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          I mean, to be fair, this isn’t proposed as the solution to climate, but rather part of the solution. Your points about income and meat prices are totally valid, but they’re things that we as citizens can pressure our governments to adopt as part of the encouragement of a reduced meat diet.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      We need a total shift. All those things are things we should do too. It’s no doubt that rich people produce more emissions.

      But you’re just trying to avoid shouldering any responsibility yourself for something were all responsible for.

      This is something you can do, right now, to decrease your carbon footprint.

      Btw, if you’re living in the west with constant access to Internet, and got a free education…you almost certainly are one of those rich people.

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The type of golf course matters. Where I live, a lot of golf courses are public, packed with big trees, surrounded by bushland, act as a green space and native animal refuge among the suburbs, some of them protect wetlands, and are local government owned. While they do use up a lot of water, its still probably less tgan if it was all just paved with suburban housing and their shit lawns. And all the trees would be gone.