the beef industry wouldnt be razing down the amazon forest if no one was buying and eating it, would they?
Comment on Why do people still eat beef when we know it's terrible for Earth?
thezeesystem@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The real question is, why should we try to not eat beef for the environment, when corporations make 90% of all pollution in the world.
Maybe focus on the 90% of the problem and not the individual people who but meat?
pugsnroses77@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 6 months ago
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.
Drusas@kbin.run 6 months ago
Your own source disputes what you say.
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.
spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
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.
oo1@kbin.social 6 months ago
I think your argument works if someone is stealing the beef.
If they are buying it then that is directly funding that "90%".
Zorque@kbin.social 6 months ago
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
Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
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.
Whayle@kbin.social 6 months ago
Beef would be much more expensive if not for the huge subsidies, it's artificially cheap. Maybe we just stop doing that and see how it goes.
Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
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.
Bougie_Birdie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
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.
3volver@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Yea, so don’t give them your money. I’m not just ranting about them on the internet, I’m actively NOT giving them my money. How hard is that for people? Oh sad sad days they can’t enjoy their steak.
BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 6 months ago
Corporation polluter the planet, therefore we should be allowed to torture animals. You got it boy
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
No corporation pollutes except to produce goods or services for human consumption, or for other businesses the 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.
littlebluespark@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Ah, yes, the ol’ victim blame schtick. GTFO with that juvenile shit. This isn’t some timeless chicken/egg quandary, son.
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
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.
Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
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.
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 6 months ago
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.
Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 6 months ago
There is no ethical consumption in capitalism.
3volver@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Nah, you just don’t give a shit to believe you have any control over reality.
3volver@lemmy.world 6 months ago
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.