Where I live the beef is local and cheap. I'm not able to obtain enough protein without meat, as confirmed by a doctor and a nutritionist when I tried to go vegetarian. With food costs so high it's cheaper to buy cow than anything else, but when I have the money I opt for fish or turkey. I looked into hunting but it's prohibitively expensive for me with permits, tags, guns, licenses, days off and transportation.
I tried fishing for myself as well, but whenever I get time to do it, there are warnings about eating fish in the area. When there aren't I never catch anything big enough to legally be allowed to keep.
I'd like to get chickens if/when local government ever lifts the bylaws preventing it.
I'm not able to obtain enough protein without meat
How does that work? Isn't egg white pure protein? Surely eating a pile of boiled eggs would give you the same amount of protein as a steak, not counting stuff like cheese and legumes.
Oh gee I didn't try eggs or dairy in the months I felt like shit after going veggie, and neither the doctor nor nutritionist suggested that either. You solved all my dietary needs and I can give up meat now after years of trying to figure out the most sustainable diet I can manage.
Sorry about that, it's the internet.
I'm not a doctor, but it was explained to me that proteins from different sources are not all the same and, while I can process protein from a variety of foods, I don't do it as efficiently as with muscle proteins. The nutritionist I spoke to - who was a vegan and a vegan activist - said people like me need about 1-2 chicken breasts per week. It's not uncommon, a lot of people who try to go veggie and can't hack it just go back to meat without trying to figure out why they felt sick and tired.
Other people have said it's genetic based on your ancestors, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence to support that. Other sources point to evidence you can alter the way your body processes things by following specific diet plans, but I'm not prepared to feel that shitty again to figure it out.
I and others are over here with soy, egg and gluten allergies that restrict pretty heavily what I can eat. But go off since you have it all figured out, king.
Sorry about your issues, I never meant to diminish them. I was genuinely curious about how one can become so limited in ones protein intake, but clearly worded my question poorly.
I don't have that option. Big Ole difference. Maybe give everyone Lyme disease so they develop red meat allergies and we can talk
Okay. You want me to double down? I won't eat at vegan places most of the time. Here's the thing: vegetables are delicious. So why?
Vegans will support a vegan place no matter what and will talk it up as being amazing even if it sucks. I've been burned being told, "oh. That place is so good" and it's just a matter of vegans circling the wagons and propping up a place that serves a lazy impossible burger with fake plastic cheese on it. Y'all ain't accountable and it makes it difficult taking vegan food seriously. No wonder y'all's food has an inferiority complex
Then so is half of mother nature. It least we usually kill our food before we eat it. We could do something like rip out their guts and unborn calves while they're still alive and start chowing down on them like a hyena.
Ha ha can you imagine if the vegans get into government and enact a law that says we can only eat meat if we kill it ourselves, so we all just start doing this like fuckin deranged hyenas 😂
The thing about individual action is that if it works, it all adds up. But if people all blame the corporations, individual action makes no dent in the over 50% of emissions that individuals help make; a self-fulfilling prophecy. And yes, over 50%. Politifact goes into detail about how most emission indeed comes from consumption instead of corporate production.
The original study did not include emissions from land use, land use change or forestry, or from sources such as landfills, agriculture and farming. It also did not include data on indirect emissions, which come from purchased energy such as heating and electricity, citing concerns about double-counting emissions attributable to corporations.
The study relied on data collected by the Carbon Majors Database, which focuses on greenhouse gas emissions data from the largest company-related sources. In other words, The data derives from records of carbon dioxide and methane emissions relating to fossil fuel (oil, gas and coal) and cement producers dating back to 1854.
...
t’s difficult to discern how much total global emissions can be attributed to the top 100 polluting corporations, but there are ways to get a ballpark idea.
If you use the total global emissions calculated by the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, an average of around 60% of global emissions can be traced back to those 100 companies from 1990 to 2015.
The real issue is one of attribution. "Traced to" isn't the same as "responsible for". I have a hard time blaming Saudi Aramco for massive volume of oil consumption in the US. Yes the oil companies are eco terrorists too but the binary take is absurd.
No corporation pollutes except to produce goods or services for human consumption, or for other businesses that provide goods or services for human consumption.
Every gallon of gas burned is to power a vehicle to move you, or the goods you purchase.
Every natural gas line leads to a house, of a business that sells things to houses.
Theres no such thing as a corporation without consumers, we are where the buck is created, and where the buck stops.
The reason why the top polluters in the world are oil and gas companies is because you buy oil and gas directly to drive your car or heat your house, or you buy electricity generated by oil and gas. The metals in your vehicle? Mining companies pollution. The food on your plate? Agricultural companies polluting. Even the shirt on your back burned bunker fuel to get from Bangladesh to your house.
If you think you aren't directly responsible for corporate pollution, you're a fucking moron.
Oh yeah I'll just stop driving my car in this world they manufactured to be unsustainable to travel in without a car.
If you think you can do ethical consumption by eating the avocados that fund latin american cartels to mutilate and rape the children of anyone who doesn't just sit there and take their shit instead of some beef from a cow raised by some kid doing their 4H project, you're the moron here.
You realize there are people in North America who do not own cars, right?
I made ethical consumption choices by looking at my three largest personal (and family) pollution sources.
First is Home heating/cooling. If you rank pollution sources, this is the single largest for most north American people. Now here I got lucky, my area uses almost 100% hydro electric power, so I switched to using a heat pump from a natural gas furnace. Now I no longer directly burn fossil fuels, and my grid is almost 100% pollution free as well. If I had not lived in this area, I would have chosen to install solar panels to offset my energy use as much as possible, and possibly participated in a green energy purchase program. It costs more, but the whole point is that if this were easy, it would already be done. You need to give something up to reduce your pollution, and in this case that thing you're giving up is some extra money.
Heat pumps are a no-brainer in this category, Smaller homes pollute less, multi-family homes with shared walls pollute less, homes with better insulation pollute less. There's choices here for everyone. They just either cost extra money, or give up some of your lifestyle.
2nd most pollution, transportation, I bought an EV a few years ago, which while it does have pollution for production over it's lifespan will have significantly fewer emissions than an equivalent ICE vehicle. Again, my electricity here is almost 100% green, or could be in almost every area.
I wasn't willing to go car free because of how far I live outside of a city, and I accept the pollution that results from my choice here. When I lived in the city, I used to have a bus pass AND a car, and I'd frequently leave the car in the driveway to take the bus for many trips.
Transportation can be addressed in so many ways, moving closer to the things you need, mass transit, EVs, etc. Again, Money or Lifestyle costs.
3rd most pollution, food, I cook with significantly less meat than average, we aren't vegetarian, but we almost never eat beef(which is a massive pollution source even compared to other meats) and our portion size for meat from pork and chicken is more for flavor than nutrition. A single pack of bacon in a lentil/vegetable stew covers 10 dinner servings, compared to a single 5 person breakfast, and I bulk out the protein with the lentils. We eat tofu 4-5 times a month, prepared in various ways, etc. Using less meat actually saves you money, alternative protein sources like beans, tofu(which is beans), and lentils are FAR cheaper. We also buy a lot of our produce from our local area(less transportation pollution) and preferably with less fertilizers (heavy pollution source)
Overall, does it cost more money or reduce your lifestyle to pollute less? Yes. That's the choice that consumers make.
You want to have no pollution AND keep your lifestyle the exact same, but it doesn't work like that. Pollution makes things cheaper, that's why companies do it. They wouldn't bother if it was more expensive. Nobody is sitting in a boardroom going: "Man, this coal costs far more, but we need to fuck the environment a little harder so lets keep using it"
We use oil and gas because it's the option that has been made most available to us. This isn't an individual problem. As long as the alternatives are prohibitively expensive for the average person, in terms of time, money, availability, etc, then we're going to always have the bulk of people choosing the easiest option.
We all have so much to worry about each day, trying to fit biking to my job a 45 minute drive away just isn't feasible. The options for changing that are either we go fuckin full on anarchy, burn the system down, and start anew, or slowly, systematically. Set an easily achievable baseline the average person can work to adopt, encourage it via subsidization and education, and give it time.
You're thinking about this wrong, you choose your lifestyle.
You simply aren't willing to give up your lifestyle to avoid emissions. It's clearly possible to live a less polluting lifestyle, there are billions of people polluting almost nothing compared to Western averages, their lifestyle just doesn't have as many conveniences as yours.
There are North American people who have chosen to live ultra-simplistic lives who pollute almost nothing as well.
That's a choice YOU make. It may not feel like you made a choice, but you do so every day by not changing your behaviors.
You're right. At the end of the day, your lifestyle is your choice. I'm merely pointing out that there are a LOT of pressures keeping people stuck in the lifestyle they're in. Those pressures are real, and if you want to effect change, it's better to target them, rather than the individual.
The pressures are not real, they're entirely social constructs.
The easiest fix is for the government to just tax carbon emissions, like Canada, and turn turn the cost way up. The market (Corporations) will change very quickly if it's cheaper not to pollute.
Will it hurt people? Yes. Costs will go up, but pollution will go down. That's the tradeoff.
Societal pressures are real, though. It doesn't matter that there's not a physical force making you do a certain thing. Humans are social animals. We're, from day 1, molded by the world we were born into. To claim that you can just deny all of those drives is, quite simply, arrogant.
Again, I want change. I want to make it as easy as possible for the individual to do the best they can. Beating them about the head, saying "well you can just choose not to eat meat!" Doesn't help that cause.
It's not arrogant, people absolutely cast off social norms all the time. That's how we drive change in our world already.
Remember segregation? We started out of that with people ignoring the rules (on both sides) despite the significant cost.
It's dead simple to stop eating meat from a social perspective, vegetarians are extremely common these days. To add to that, there's no social cost at all for simply reducing meat consumption. None of your friends are going to complain about you serving carbonara instead of steak when they come over.
And all of those social norms took time. Took small changes. We didn't just bring a bunch of slaves over, and one day say "nah this ain't right." We had a MASSIVE chain of events that led to, finally, enough people being done with it, and they started a war. We didn't just say "hey,black people shouldn't be forced to use different facilities", we had a massive chain of social events that shaped our cultural landscape, making it easier for people to do the right thing.
That's my point. It's not just a flip of the switch and it's done. It's small, incremental steps that win over people slowly. Just the fact that you bring up reduction at all is more evidence for my point. You have got to start small, if you want to see it through.
If it was as simple as you make it out to be, we'd already be in a utopia.
Let me ask you this - what, exactly, do you think my argument is?
As a vegan, you're absolutely right. A lot of people think the hard part is giving up meat or dairy or eggs, but it's not. The hard part is dealing with the social implications. Explaining to your friends you aren't willing to eat with them when they're doing something you find thoroughly wrong. Having your mom disappointed you won't eat her cooking.
You have to be willing, at least somewhat, to pay the cost of maintaining your convictions, and nobody ever tells you that when you start.
Social change is hard, and it takes time. But so many have already blazed a much harder path than I've had to endure, and every time someone else gets on board it makes it easier.
Doing the right thing is rarely the easiest thing.
Exactly. So many people write off the impact society makes on our individual decisions. The thing that's critical to remember is, we're all doing our best. I believe that thoroughly - no one wants to be less than the best version of themselves. Celebrate the smallest of wins, and eventually we'll all be there.
Theres no such thing as a corporation without consumers, we are where the buck is created, and where the buck stops.
Absolutely correct, glad to have read your comment. People need to start realizing they play a role in what's to come. It's a terrible mentality to think we don't all have our effect on the future.
Because corporations make things based on the demand of those individual people. They don't exist in a vacuum. And they're not going to change because someone on the internet rants about them. Their only incentive is profit
It's a bit of both. We started out just liking beef, for all the reasons above - easy to grow, good bioavailability, tasty, etc. From there, we built our society up, became capitalists, and started really honing in on efficiency, because more efficiency is more money. Now cows are everywhere and beef is cheap.
Right now beef is pretty much the cheapest protein option readily available, and that I actually know how to prepare. Both of those come from the supply being huge, our culture being built around meat eating, it just kinda being the way we are.
This isn't an individual problem to solve. No amount of vegans voting with their wallet is going to redirect the monumental ship that is our culture. We need subsidization on non-meat options, more ubiquitous supply, and more practice with the style of cuisine if we ever hope to make changes that stick.
Right. Part of my point. We have taken great efforts to make beef cheap, and to bolster the supply. With all of this effort, it really isn't a surprise your average person is going to choose beef.
I'd propose slowly increasing subsidies to beef alternatives, and then once those are to the same level of affordableness and you've got some adoption, start cutting beef subsidies. Make the transition slow and painless, more people will stick to it.
I always hear people talking about how beef is so cheap and I wonder how that could be when it costs twice as much as pork in my grocery store. I never thought about subsidies in other countries.
Because not everyone agrees that it's terrible for Earth. And even some of those that do may not consider it so terrible for Earth that it's not worth the tastiness.
You're wasting electricity running a computer right now, when we know that electricity generation is terrible for Earth. Why are you doing that?
How would not tolerating look like? Let's start with you as an example, maybe your loved ones too. And maybe look at the horrors of a one child policy in China before we start following that idea again.
Humans can be weird about these facts or simply indifferent to the known effect that raising these animals for meat has on the environment. Additionally, I think the antagonistic message of a few vocal vegans triggered a powerful foolishness in the heads of certain people who are prone to acting hedonistically upon being told not to do something. A combination of apathy, chasing profits, taste for beef, and spite which fuels the industrialized beef production business. Another issue is that most of us simply won't be around to experience the consequences of the unchecked corporations responsible for this willful harm the meat industry is causing Earth's climate and surrounding environment. I believe in moderation, eating as little of all the meats as possible (those industries have a big impact on the environment). As an American, I see a weird pride that certain people have about eating as much meat as possible; loudly shunning and making fun of those who have either a mostly plant-based, vegetarian, or vegan diet. It's such a selfish outlook that happens in societies that focus on the individual over the many.
Another issue is that most of us simply won’t be around to experience the consequences
I think most people middle-aged or younger will experience the consequences (in fact, we already are with the increased frequency of severe weather events) it's just that those consequences will get worse over time.
The youngest of people certainly will be I could have worded this thought better, but I didn't. Severe weather is certainly a consequence as well as increased extremes in temperature which are currently happening. Everyone already feels the impact of irresponsible environmental decisions made by the oil industry and industrial agriculture/animal husbandry. Millennials, Gen X and Gen Z will be around to experience the worsening of conditions on Earth. I do genuinely believe that people don't consider the fact that they aren't going to experience the climate outcomes based on irresponsible decisions. However, based on the current growing political instability of the USA; I wonder if people are beginning to feel a desire to indulge as they don't know if they'll come out unscathed from the blowup which is bound to happen at some point. A bad outlook to have in a way as that will only magnify future issues, however, humans aren't always rational! 🤪
Same, I just like how it tastes. I'd rather not eat any meat than not drink milk. I do know that both are bad for the environment and for the cows but quitting is not easy
Outside of the fact that a single cows life provides about 900 meals for humans, and the scraps left over make boots that last for a decade and also feed our cats and dogs. Plus, it's delicious.
Yeah so, the amount of meals is correct. But that's about it. I mean, I can't say about the taste, to each their own, but one kg of cow meat needs two dozen kg of grain.
That's about as inefficient as it gets.
As for the leather, the industry doesn't like products that last a decade, so it isn't actually using the leather in such a way. Industrial leather boots last a year tops.
Finally, pet food is made out of discarded cuts of meat, the uglies, etc. But also lots of cereals, and vegetables.
So we could really afford eating less meat. It isn't good for anything. Not for us, not for the other species (certainly not for the cows, that get often half assed butchered in a hasty way because of quotas and profit), and absolutely not for the ecosystem.
If we had the same size, I could be wearing my grandfather's steeltoes that are probably a solid 40 years old. People really underestimate how long good footwear lasts when you take care of it.
I can make hey dude's last 9 months. If OP can't make the cheapest leather boots last more than a year, they are using them wrong, or they should buy high end boots for whatever they're doing.
Seriously. I bought some dirt cheap full grain leather biker boots 3 years ago; I have given them exactly 0 care, abused the snot our of them daily, and they are still holding up strong. These weren't even boots meant for working and they still survived trudging through the various slops of all 4 minnesotan seasons for 3 years.
As long as you are buying actual leather and not "genuine leather" then whatever you buy should easily last several years even if not cared for. Well cared for leather goods can last decades.
So, OK, I'm willing to learn: please show me good brands then.
They need to resist to mud (thick mud, the kind with a ton of suction that will keep your soles when you try and move), seawater, rocks and sand, and pretty dense vegetation.
They also need to have steel toe caps, good soles (vibram or equivalent if possible) that don't slip, and that aren't too hard (wet stone is enough of a female dog as it is), and to go higher than my ankle.
The best brand I tried so far was caterpillar, but they lasted only 3 years. That's a far cry from "a decade or more".
Whatever their food is, 1kg of beef requires 24kg of grain's worth of energy. This is something they teach in high-school biology now. The higher the food chain, the more energy is lost. Stopping such production would be pretty beneficial to the environment, but whether we should is a complicated question.
But as I pointed out, many cattle are ranched on land that cannot grow grain. They can't grow the sorts of crops that humans eat, only the sorts of crops that cattle eat. If cattle weren't being ranched on those lands they wouldn't be producing edible grain instead, or any other food that humans could eat. So the inefficiency is moot when it comes to the amount of nutrition produced, removing the cattle from that land would simply reduce the total amount of food we have available.
Sure, if you remove the cattle then wild animals could come in to replace them, but we should make sure that's not going to result in starvation and poverty if we do that. Many areas of the world have subsistence ranching by the locals.
Are we just going to ignore the millions of acres of vast grasslands that supported like 50 million buffalo in the US 200 year ago? Healthy grassland ecosystems and ruminants are a thing.
Interesting. However, a search says that feeding all the grass (or whatever) to cattle takes that food away from existing ecosystems in dry areas and potentially allow exotic weeds to take over land. So we probably don't want this to expand to the point where we intrude on dry ecosystems.
It's just a matter of land management. Many of those grassland areas used to have other large grazing animals on them, so as long as the cattle herds aren't bigger than those old herds it should be sustainable.
Billions of trees every year get cut down to make space for cattle pastures, now tell me how destroying entire ecosystems that have been there for potentially thousands of years is worth some particular meat.
sure but a very small amount compared to what people eat. around 50% of american land is just used to grow crops for cattle. if we opted to reduce that, think of how much forest and natural land we could bring back.
There's no need to "torture" cattle to get meat from them. Indeed, meat from animals that are experiencing stressful conditions tastes worse. Not to mention simply having lower productivity. A farm with happy cows is going to be more profitable than one with stressed ones, all else being equal.
Guess you didn't get to grow up watching the discovery Channel before all their shows were about crab fishing and animal rescue. Would you rather I go rip a gazelle apart and start eating it's insides while it keeps trying to stand up with only two front legs?