this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
1393 points (95.1% liked)

Memes

51787 readers
1501 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Going vegan is according to the IPCC the single biggest step a individual can take.

i'm sure that's not true.

edit: i was right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

We show that even if fossil fuel emissions were immediately halted, current trends in global food systems would prevent the achievement of the 1.5°C target and, by the end of the century, threaten the achievement of the 2°C target

E: Mind you, some of these numbers are already a few years old where there was no progress.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

so... not the ipcc, but a fluff piece in the guardian.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ah, is you again. ever concidered to go back to r/antivegan?

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

have you ever considered just sticking to thefacts instead of stretching the truth?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)
[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/2346326

that doesn't actually say what you said it says. are you just searching IPCC and vegan and hoping to get something good?

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I can't prove a negative. it est, it can't prove the ipccc didn't say what you claimed. I can only demand proof that they did say what you claimed. a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

I understand the "tickle the vegans" for human interactions because of the hole "no friends" thing you got going on, but you have to get better material. Try "plants have feelings too" that way you can at least get some articles to reinforce your standpoint. If you continue every vegan arguing against you will seem calm and reasonable compared to you. I have read the papers, and the people who wrote it say what I posted. You make even antivegans look worse which is not a problem for me but its not good for your cause.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

my only "cause" is to engage on a topic i find interesting and keep the discussion honest. your assumptions about my motives are simply wrong. i'm not even anti-vegan.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You are a pigeon who looks always looks for the same board to run over, get better material.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago

this is just a personal attack. it doesn't undermine my position at all.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago

i have read these papers too. i thought maybe you would have something i haven't read. turns out you just can't keep to the facts and insist on embellishing.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago

nice edit: appeals to authority are not sufficient evidence of the truth of the matter.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

oof. maybe you shouldn't use that link:

Both reducing ruminant meat consumption and increasing its efficiency are often identified as the main options to reduce GHG emissions (GHGE) and to lessen pressure on land (Westhoek et al. 2014) (see Section 5.6 for synergies and trade-offs with health and Section 5.7 for discussion of Just Transitions). However, analysing ruminant meat production is highly complex because of the extreme heterogeneity of production systems and due to the numerous products and services associated with ruminants (Gerber et al. 2015893 ). See Supplementary Material Section SM5.5 for further discussion of uncertainties in estimates of livestock mitigation technical potential. Further, current market mechanisms are regarded as insufficient to decrease consumption or increase efficiency, and governmental intervention is often suggested to encourage mitigation in both the supply-side and demand-side of the food system (Section 5.7) (Wirsenius et al. 2011894 ; Henderson et al. 2018895 ).

Encouraging consumption of locally produced food and enhancing efficiency of food processing and transportation can, in some cases, minimise food loss, contribute to food security, and reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption and food loss. For example, Michalský and Hooda (2015)938 , through a quantitative assessment of GHG emissions of selected fruits and vegetables in the UK, reported that increased local production offers considerable emissions savings. They also highlighted that when imports are necessary, importing from Europe instead of the Global South can contribute to considerable GHG emissions savings. Similar results were found by Audsley et al. (2010)939 , with exceptions for some foods, such as tomatoes, peppers or sheep and goat meat. Similarly, a study in India shows that long and fragmented supply chains, which lead to disrupted price signals, unequal power relations perverse incentives and long transport time, could be a key barrier to reducing post-harvest losses (CIPHET 2007940 ).

In summary, consuming locally grown foods can reduce GHG emissions, if they are grown efficiently (high confidence). The emissions reduction potential varies by region and season. Whether food with shorter supply chains has a lower carbon footprint depends on both the on-farm emissions intensity as well as the transport emissions. In some cases, imported food may have a lower carbon footprint because some distant agricultural regions can produce food at lower emissions intensities.

Springmann et al.(2018a) modelled the role of technology, waste reduction and dietary change in living within planetary boundaries (Rockström et al. 20091044 ), with the climate change boundary being a 66% chance of limiting warming to less than 2°C. They found that all are necessary for the achievement of a sustainable food system. Their principal conclusion is that only by adopting a ‘flexitarian diet’, as a global average, would climate change be limited to under two degrees. Their definition of a flexitarian diet is fruits and vegetables, plant-based proteins, modest amounts of animal-based proteins, and limited amounts of red meat, refined sugar, saturated fats, and starchy foods.

looks like flexitarian is the actual recommendation, but it's not even clear whether that's a good recommendation since food is only one of the outputs of animal agriculture including ruminants.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Do you need it in your native language or do you have problems reading?

  • meat reduction is main option to reduce GHG and pressure on land. It will be difficult to decrease (because of boneheads like you)

  • is about vegetables and that transport is not such a huge part of the chain

  • efficiency lowers GHG even more and import is sometimes better

  • dietary change can reduce the chance of warming to less than 2°C which is the path we are on with animal industry.

Maybe try to first form a argument instead of mindlessly posting parts that argue for my position.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago

mindlessly posting parts that argue for my position.

someone is having problems with reading comprehension, but it's not me.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago

calling me a bonehead doesn't change what the ipcc says

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

dietary change can reduce the chance of warming to less than 2°C which is the path we are on with animal industry.

that is not supported by any of the sources you linked.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is supported by the very same text you posted.

Springmann et al.(2018a) modelled the role of technology, waste reduction and dietary change in living within planetary boundaries (Rockström et al. 20091044 ), with the climate change boundary being a 66% chance of limiting warming to less than 2°C. They found that all are necessary for the achievement of a sustainable food system. Their principal conclusion is that only by adopting a ‘flexitarian diet’, as a global average, would climate change be limited to under two degrees. Their definition of a flexitarian diet is fruits and vegetables, plant-based proteins, modest amounts of animal-based proteins, and limited amounts of red meat, refined sugar, saturated fats, and starchy foods.

Their calculations include animal products because they account for dense people like you for some time.

Get a live

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago

calling me dense doesn't change what the ipcc actually said. you should stop exaggerating: it's bad for your case when people find out you're lying to them.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago

form a argument

no. i don't have an argument. i have problems with your argument.