311
Plant-heavy ‘flexitarian’ diets could help limit global heating, study finds
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
311 points (90.6% liked)
News
23305 readers
3701 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.
But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
50% of all green house gases come from animal agriculture, so yeah...
Also torturing other animals for your taste buds is not okay.
I see, so doing something about it is the responsibility of consumers, not the companies who do it.
Both. But one you can change right now. At your next meal just choose vegan.
Which means either be rich or live a life eating nothing but beans and rice.
Beans, rice, tofu, lentils, mushrooms, chickpeas, nuts, seeds, many options and they're all cheaper than flesh, and healthier for you and better for the environment.
Choose one of those, and use the extra money to donate towards something that will undermine those capitalist trash.
Extra money. Donate. Must be nice to be rich. By the way, people who aren't rich can often work two jobs. When do you think they have time to cook?
Moving the goalpost much? First it is not the consumers fault, then it is too expensive and now you do not even have time to cook?
Yes. All of those things. And it's not about me, it's about the single mother working two jobs trying to keep their kids fed with something and living in a food desert where they can't even get things like tofu. It is not their fault because it is too expensive and they don't have time to cook and also they might not even be able to get it.
https://theconversation.com/time-to-cook-is-a-luxury-many-families-dont-have-117158
https://www.aecf.org/blog/exploring-americas-food-deserts
Until you fix those problems, it is not the fault of consumers.
It is about you though. I was talking to you.
Not some hypothetical person who you can hide behind.
Okay, but I never said what my diet is. If you're curious, I don't have one.
I don't know where you live, but in the UK at least going vegan is cheaper than eating meat: https://www.kantar.com/uki/inspiration/consumer/how-popular-is-veganism-in-the-uk so if saving money is your (understandable) concern then swapping to 'beans and rice' as you put it is worth it.
Same for the USA as well: https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/eating-vegan-diet-reduces-grocery-bill-16-savings-more-500-year-finds-new.
In fact it's almost a global solution: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study
They're also quicker to prepare as well: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2020/12/18/Vegan-meals-cheaper-and-quicker-than-meat-or-fish
It might be cheaper if you don't live in a food desert and have time to cook.
Neither of these are reasonable for many Americans.
https://theconversation.com/time-to-cook-is-a-luxury-many-families-dont-have-117158
https://www.aecf.org/blog/exploring-americas-food-deserts
Veganism is a privilege that many people cannot have.
What's your point? Arguments for veganism only apply to those who can eat vegan. They obviously don't apply to those that can't. You concern re. food deserts is a very valid one but that isn't a criticism of veganism, it's benefits or its impact on the environment. Working to eliminate food deserts and improve nutritional options for everyone is a part of tackling climate change. For those Americans that do have access to some vegan options (about 80% of the population) going vegan or at least 'flexitarian' is cheaper, quicker, healthier and better for the environment.
In edition, your point about families having time, whilst valid, is again not a criticism of veganism, it's a criticism of a multitude of wider societal issues.
Also, please bear in mind that the US is not the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to familial trends. In the UK for example, people are actually cooking at home more: https://brandclock.co.uk/scratch-cooking-in-the-uk-increasing/
Even in the US approx 64% of the population home cook: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/survey-reveals-81-of-consumers-now-cook-more-than-half-of-their-meals-at-home-302007657.html
Didn't this start with someone saying everyone should go vegan?
This particular thread started with your comment here: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/10351315
I'm pretty sure it started with my comment here- https://sh.itjust.works/comment/10349694
Great, except I'm not discussing that comment with you, I'm discussing your comments re. the costs and time requirements of veganism.
But OK, I'll bite. The comment you linked has already been addressed multiple times. Your numbers were incorrect and your comment re. mothers buying meat misses the point of the original article, which is extolling the environmental virtues of going vegan for those that can. Ideally everyone should go vegan. This is not the same as saying everyone can.
Okay, but again, I was responding to someone who said the world should go vegan and explaining why a lot of people in the U.S. can't do that.
I don't know why you're so against me explaining that.
I'm not against the sentiment, I'm against how you're making it and the tone you're taking whilst doing so.
Comments like *100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.
But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids*. come across as needlessly confrontational and are an example of a fallacy of relevance. No one was blaming mothers buying meat for climate change. No one was advocating for businesses to be allowed To ignore their environmental responsibilities. You raised arguments that were irrelevant to the article, then doubled down by moving the goal-posts further to encompass additional societal problems like the lack of nutritional food in some parts of the US, all of which are irrelevant to the point of the article.
Also, my point stands: the world arguably should go vegan. Doesn't mean they can. Your point doesn't invalidate theirs.
You never said that your problem was me being needlessly confrontation before. I would argue that you've been needlessly confrontational this whole time. Is it okay when you do it?
Eating beans, rice, lentils, peas, etc. is way cheaper than meat. A 4 lbs bag of chickpeas is $6 and provides 6,500 calories of mostly dietary fiber and protein.
Cooking is something you have to do, just like laundry and washing yourself. I’m not sure if this is a western thing or what, but for most people in the world, the less money you have, the more you cook. Eating prepared foods and meat is expensive.
https://theconversation.com/time-to-cook-is-a-luxury-many-families-dont-have-117158
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
You can complain all you want about how poor you are that you can’t eat beans and lentils, but the entire world outside of US, Canada, and Western Europe is proof of the contrary.
It takes 20 minutes to cook lentils and rice. 30 to cook beans if you have a pressure cooker. These foods are dirt cheap, shelf stable, and sold everywhere. My local gas station sells Goya beans.
I’m sorry about your situation, but cooking and feeding yourself is just part of living whether vegan or not. This widespread idea in the US that being poor means you should be eating expensive unhealthy prepared meals is strange. It will only make your situation worse.
This isn't about my situation. Did you even read those links?
Yes, and I addressed them. And frankly, I’m getting a little tired of people in the wealthiest countries in the world complaining that they don’t have time to cook beans, so instead they’re going to buy a beef cheeseburger cooked and assembled for them for $2.
I have lived in bad neighborhoods. I’ve worked shit jobs. I’ve bought bags of Goya green lentils from a gas station.
If you don’t want to, you don’t have to, but stop with this “poor people can’t afford to eat anything but McDonald’s and frozen dinners” thing.
Ah, right, have you and your kids live off beans and rice you can get at a gas station rather than have anything pleasurable. As usual, blame the poor for not living like animals.
Is there something wrong with rice and beans? I eat both of those daily. If the only thing that gives you pleasure is a fat and salt filled cheeseburger, that’s a separate issue.
And anyway, this argument went from “it’s too expensive” to “it takes too much time” to “it’s not good”. We can just agree to disagree. No one is forcing you to eat something you don’t want.
That's great for you if you want to live on nothing but rice and beans. I hope that's not the only thing you feed your kids if you have any. Because they would be forced to eat something they might not want.
And from the very beginning I suggested that saying poor people should just eat rice and beans all the time is just saying they deserve to suffer a lack of a varied diet because they can't afford one, can't find the food and don't have time to cook. And since they don't, climate change is their fault.
Blaming poor people for having a diet consisting of more than two things or else they're being unethical or whatever is just a cruel outlook.
I’m sure this is a bad faith argument and you don’t really think “rice and beans” means literally only rice and beans boiled in plain water, but just in case, you can throw in a couple veggies. Or not, since you live in a food desert that only serves McDonald’s, working 2 jobs to put cheeseburgers on the table for your kids so you don’t even have time to slice an onion. Sorry for being cruel 😊.
Ah right. Vegetables, known to be highly available in food deserts.
And, of course, there's zero steps between a hamburger and rice, beans and veggies. Like, I don't know, letting your kids have a candy bar. Or scrambled eggs. Those things are totally out of the question.
Candy bars?! Who am I, the king of England? They’ll eat mashed boiled lentils and be grateful.
That sure sounds like what you're saying. Either you live off of rice, beans and lentils and maybe vegetables if you're poor if those are all available in your area in the half an hour a day you have to prepare a meal and never give your kid a candy bar or you're an unethical person who is responsible for climate change.
And, of course, people in Canada solved that problem so people in the U.S. can too. Just like how the U.S. has socialized medicine.
I think it's important to make an honest assessment of what is, and what isn't, under control of consumers. Reducing meat consumption is something that consumers actually can control, unlike say the massive environmental destruction caused by military.
Corporations and other entities doing bad stuff does not absolve us of our own responsibility.
Yeah, apart from transportation it is really the easiest way to have a personal impact on carbon dioxide emissions. If you rent, you can't exchange your heating system, if you use electricity you have no impact on where it comes from and so on.
Capitalism means companies aren't gonna do shit, but you've got a choice to not participate in a flawed system.
I'm not one to tell people what to do, but pretending that someone else doing a bad thing justifies another bad thing...
Go ahead and refuse to participate. There's nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect it to have a significant climate impact.
"I alone can't change anything" is a hastily spoken excuse to shift responsibility onto others. But you are responsible for your life and your actions.
Nothing I personally do will have an effect on climate change. If you want to argue for people to not eat meat, fine. But blaming them for the climate worsening because they eat meat is placing the blame on the wrong party and is not going to convince people. There are other and better arguments.
I can blame more than one party, no problem! Politics must change, the economy must change, and society as well. Since you and me are part of the population, let's please change too! Politics will follow suit if we are serious.
Like how abortion is legal in the U.S. because the majority is in favor of it, right?
Throwing one piece of trash out the window also won't have a significant impact.
When it comes to climate change, throwing things away is not a major issue, so that's not really a good comparison.
por que no los dos
Politifact | No, 100 corporations do not produce 70% of total greenhouse gas emissions
It says 50% instead of 70%. Fine. It also doesn't say how much consumers are at fault. Probably because it isn't much. But sure, keep recycling those plastic bottles if it makes you feel better.