Isn't the math clear that meat consumption requires more emissions than non-meat consumption, on average (as in per calorie)?

depends on the meat and the non-meat.

There is carbon-negative beef, and there are plants that require enormous amounts of artificial soil additives. Probably the biggest factor is whether the meat comes from a ranch in your general area and if the bell-pepper in your salad was flown in from holland.

meet the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Hq8eVOMHs&t=4s

Great video.

What seems obvious to those of us interested in the topic is clearly quite foreign to most people in this forum after reading the comments.

Did I say somewhere that meat consumption is not problematic?

I'm responding to "people disagree with the notion that reducing meat consumption is helpful from an emissions perspective". People may disagree but it's like disagreeing that 100 > 1 -- who cares what they think?

What it says is

> "not ... that people disagree"

Right you are...

Sorry, I managed to misread your comment a few times.

You should probably sit still and not move around too much in order to minimize the number of calories you need to stay alive. If that's the metric we're optimizing for, anyway.

This is the sort of childish reply I see when folks talk about emissions from meat consumption/production. What's next, are you going to tell me that every steak I don't eat you'll eat two more? That's a classic.

There is no more time left for this kind of pragmatism. It doesn’t matter it people disagree, the truth is supporting meat consumption is supporting industries that are actively killing us and the planet.

I assume you are being serious, but the truth is that supporting ICE vehicle sales and the fossil fuel industry as a result is supporting industries that are actively killing us and the planet also.

I sure hope you bike (or drive a conflict-free electric car, I guess?) and are powered by your own solar panels if you feel this way.

why do you have to have your own solar panels? doesn't make any sense to me

I agree however on biking (or public transport). I will always try to live max 15-20km away from work, such that I always can use a bike or a velomobile.

Please don't try to make ad hominem arguments, thanks.

“Own” as in “not from a grid” not self-manufactured.

I understood. However this is rather counter productive as it requires more environmentally costly storage as well as solar capacity. Additionally, it totally neglects all other sources of renewable energy.

It is next to impossible to use only renewable electricity from the grid. I agree with you, the statement was meant to illustrate the original poster’s rather unhelpful maximalist stance.

> It is next to impossible to use only renewable electricity from the grid.

And how do you come to this conclusion?

I guess I should have said "currently" -- very few grids are 100% renewable; some offer the option to individual customers (hi EBCE!) but usually what this means is that the operators purchase enough power from renewable sources to cover that customer's daily use, but crucially it's not always at the time of use. For example, the user might be supplied with power from a fossil fuel power plant at night, but then extra solar power is purchased during sunnier periods to compensate.

AHH a classic right wing gotcha

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...

Huh?

We need to both (a) reduce emissions from transport, and (b) reduce emissions from agriculture.

The parent poster was implying (presumably, because my original post was saying “we should do both” in response to a post that said “(a) is irrelevant, only (b) matters”) that anyone not doing (b) was killing the planet, and I’m pointing out here that if that’s true, anyone not doing (a) is also killing the planet.

We need both! It’s not optional! Half these conversations are “ok sure but X is really all that matters!” — and that is completely false.

We need to reduce or eliminate emissions from all sources, full stop.

It would also help the planet greatly if we stopped sending aid to Africa and other poor nations. Without our help, their populations would decline quite a bit, reducing their meat consumption and emissions by a huge amount. I know this is an unpopular sentiment but we have to be pragmatic.

That’s not being pragmatic. You’re saying “cut aid to countries whose per capita resource usage is 14x lower than that of the US.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_...

It's not about per capita, it's about total. We can not only reduce their resource usage, but also produce less food ourselves, all for free. It's win-win.

Western states consume vastly more meat and animal products that poor nations that receive our aid. This is a trash take that will only hurt people.

People with lots of resources do the EV and solar panel thing and get sasiated. Right - box ticked, move on.

Making a difference requires reducing travel, reducing the use of all heavy transport, reducing meat consumption.

Solar panels are great, but you don't get let off the hook because you've gone and spent the cash to do it and be guilt free from there on

Again…both are helpful.