Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.

https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption

Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-beef-industry-fueling-amazon-rainforest-destruction-deforestation/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-06-02/almost-a-billion-trees-felled-to-feed-appetite-for-brazilian-beef

If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌

Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

  • rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    I agree that systemic change is important, too, but 6% of global emissions attributable to a single factor is HUGE. Plus, it’s not one or the other. Changes by individuals supports change at a systemic level.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      From a selfish perspective, why should the entire populace be forced to give up small luxuries in their increasingly difficult lives just so that a handful of large corporations don’t have to make any changes?

      Why isn’t it that these large corporations should be forced to change, thus removing the need for everyone getting rid of their small luxuries?

      Just seems ridiculous that the message is “everyone should give up their creature comforts and live as simply and tediously as possible so that billionaires don’t have to change”.

      • rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Just seems ridiculous that the message is “everyone should give up their creature comforts and live as simply and tediously as possible so that billionaires don’t have to change”.

        I never said that. On the contrary: All of it will have to change if life on this planet is supposed to remain livable, and it’s gonna involve quite a bit more than giving up red meat. I also think that having broad public support for that change, built on many individuals who choose to implement it, will make it easier to impose the same demands (e.g., through policy) on corporations and the wealthy. Given that billionaires are not exactly known for being selfless, waiting for them to do the right thing seems like a losing strategy to me.

    • 0x0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Changes by individuals supports change at a systemic level.

      I’m interpreting that as changes by individuals supports changes by corporations and it’s making zero sense.

      • rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I used “systemic” with regards to policy. I don’t think corporations change much by themselves without a strong monetary incentive (e.g., shifts in customer preferences) or external pressure (e.g., policy). Changes in individuals are helpful for both of these.