Or growing water-intensive crops in water-plentiful regions of the world.

Aka deforestation.

That’s meat, it’s the most water intensive. How much do you want to get that she/he eats meat everyday? What about you?

I eat meat whenever my local supermarket has a piece of organic meat on sale because it would otherwise get thrown away. That's once or twice a week. Less meat consumption in general would probably be good not only for the environment but also for public health.

Awesome. I’ve been a vegetarian for 25+ years, my 6+ year old car has less than 35k miles, I’ll bet my carbon footprint is lower than nearly every American commenting on this thread.

Having said that, merely hoping that people will make significant changes in their lifestyle for indirect and abstract benefits is simply burying one’s head in the sand with a rationalization that makes them feel good. The population is growing, and we will either innovate our way out of this, or it’s famine/war/etc.

Edit: go into /r/environment on Reddit and suggest people eat a lot less meat and see how quickly it’s downvoted into oblivion. And those are the people who actively care!

> I eat meat whenever my local supermarket has a piece of organic meat on sale because it would otherwise get thrown away.

I don't think that really works any more than the "look I'm killing the cows" argument. If they have to throw away packages each week, they'll buy less in the future, which in turn leads to lower production.

I agree, but I enjoy meat a lot and these silly restrictions I put on myself help to keep my consumption at reasonably low levels.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Limiting to twice a week is good.

You assume the alternative is buying more. What if the alternative is buying twice a week but based on a different metric? Or buying less?

In general it's better to be accurate about cause and effect and then choose what to do. That way you can make sure the way you're measuring "good" is real.