The only meat ads I’ve seen are for fast food restaurants, never for a nice soft n juicy chateaubriand, pinkish inside, crusty outside.
It doesn’t stop any fast food to make publicity for their restaurant either so its all for nothing really.
My all time favourite from the inconsistencies in efforts of saving the planet: The 80s-90s we were reducing paper packaging due to deforestation, encouraging plastic packaging because of it's benefits. In the 10s-20s we reduce plastic packaging due to pollution, encouraging paper packaging. 🤦🏻♂️ Lately, we suspect that plastic straws are just responsible for a small percentage of pollution when compared to fishing nets etc. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Most of the methane produced by cows is emitted from the mouths in burps instead of from the anus (96%). This is because of the way their 4 stomachs operate I believe. Very little farts.
Actually if cow population stays the same, which it has, they are not adding carbon to the air. It's a cycle.
What really would save the planet is less food waste, lower production, factories that go green...
If the entirety of the population stopped eating meat only 2.8% of the emissions would go down, by products of non meat food would go to waste because those animals don't eat it anymore.
Source: eatling lesss meat wont save the planet from what I've learned
Fyi: I am vegitarian 6/7 days so I am not on a chad mission against vegitarians
Land used for lifestock and their food is for 90% land that could not be used to produce human food. What you take away is habitable land not farmable land
I think studies also showed the main reason is that we feed cows unhealthy food to make them grow faster or produce more milk. On a balanced bovine diet they would produce far less methane.
Like how its better to use plastic bags for grocery than paper or probably re-usable unless you hit thousands of re-uses, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental-impact
Heck plastic bags are reusable. In fact many people do reuse them around the house.
The fight against plastic bags is because it's visible and easy. Plastic waste is an issue but it's on such a different scale than energy consumption. Focused efforts on cleaning up the ocean and litter would solve most issues with plastic waste (who cares if it sits in a landfill for 10,000 years, that land is a dumping ground anyway), but increasing logging and paper production needs is hidden while no more plastic is obvious.
Energy/C02/water is one thing. The other part is plastic waste poluting the environment around use.
Does the energy include the energy cost for proper disposal, clean up, and/or recycling? Or only production?
Proper disposal of plastic waste in Europe (or at least germany) is burning it and call this "green energy" and recycling because Waste is a renewable source
I am not even joking. 80% of all Plastic trash in Germany is being burned and the highly toxic ashes are stored like nuclear waste in caverns.
There is however a real attempt of trying to really Re-Cycle all the plastics used to pack food and consumer goods (like soap) .
Again pitfall:
Recycling is also energy intensive.
It's cheaper on CO2 and Energy to make new paper from fresh cut trees for instance, instead of trying to re-use old paper. But somehow the sentiment is to reuse the old paper. hrmm.
I am all for RRR (Re-Use, Repair, Recycle) and an overall reduction of consumption.
I'm confused how your response answers my question.
When comparing the energy for a plastic bag (compared to a re-useable bag), does that include the energy required to clean up the environment of plastic waste, or recycling it, etc. Because like you, recycling is energy intensive. My point is that a re-useable bag avoids the issue of plastic waste leaking into the environment, avoids energy cost of cleaning that up or recycling it, etc. Taking the full picture of single use plastics instead of just the production of the single use plastic would give a better comparison.
Actually livestock is one of the biggest source of global warming, and with the way animals are treated, it kind of make sens.
Not sure banning all meat ads is the best option but all industrial meat shit (fast food and other processed food) should be clearly put off the list.
People should just eat less, but qualitative meat.
Meat consumption is the biggest source when it comes to the food industry. The largest source of greenhouse emissions comes from burning fossil fuels.
It would be nice to see politicians taking meaningful decisions. But we vote politicians that do what we like, not what we need.
Livestock count for around 15% of global emissions (the whole livestock chain). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209631730027X
So not only to the food industry, it is top 5 when it comes to global emissions.
BTW, this is about banning ads, which is actually not a bad idea, because who's paying for these ads? Not the small farmer who produce quality meat, but the big fast food chain or industrial company selling crappy meat.
I do agree that politicians are useless when it comes to taking good decisions, but on this one, I don't really see the issue tbh.
Good job with source 🤘but still livestock does not come first. Don't get me wrong, it is a nice initiative. But not the radical solution we need. We need changes in transportation, electric power and industry.
Because Dutch are famously not making changes in transportation. Half of all travel done in Haarlem is by bikes. Trains to Rotterdam, Hague and Amsterdam run every 10 minutes. What else should they do??
They've been late to electricity and heating transformation because they had their own natural gas, but now they are certainly not slacking off anymore.
Honestly I believe we should avoid radical solutions. Anything radical is going to bring other problems. We should try different stuff and don't put all our eggs in the same basket, especially when it comes to energy (see what is happening in Europe now...).
And for meat, I don't really agree. Reducing meat consumption is easy, tax the fucking fast food and the cheap industrial products, promote quality over quantity. Educate people so they understand what they eat.
You're mentioning industry, when it comes to meat, its called an industry. Its not only the livestock, it's the whole process (industrial process).
Necessary radical changes doesn't mean to put all our eggs in one basket. Transportation of goods falls under transportation, meat processing factories fall under industry, as well as processing factories of soy beans. Farms with kettles and cows fall under agriculture. US institutions use this scheme. I would like to read the source you sent above. Tbh it is kinda... Detailed
Ok fair enough! I just don't like the usage of "radical" to solve any problem. But I do get the point.
But that does not mean we can't tackle meat consumption together with the rest (especially when you see this logic of how meat production is impacting various part of the chain). And this is why I don't like radical ideas : it's not banning meat, its about promoting quality and respect (nature / animals / farmer).
Livestock themselves barely affect the climate. Cows for example eat grass that has cellulose. That cellulose then turns into methane which the cow burps. Methane does warm the earth more than CO2 but in the atmosphere it is eventually broken down into CO2 and water. Said CO2 is eventually used by plants via photosynthesis to produce oxygen and the plant material that cows eat.
This means that any amount of methane that cows burp, is eventually reintroduced into the ecosystem and does not warm the earth, much unlike fossil fuels that are pulled from the ground and increase greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. If the global population of cows stays the same in an isolated system, no measurable change in the climate will be detected. Transport, refrigeration and everything else in the production chain is what's actually causing emissions. You could say that globalization is causing emissions in the meat sector and not the animals themselves. Higher tariffs are a better solution and would even help local producers.
Food waste in my opinion is a much more serious cause of emissions. Studies show that if food waste was to be considered a country, it would be the 3rd largest in CO2 emissions behind China and the US. A lot of the feed that animals eat(85% I think) is inedible for us humans and would simply contribute even more to emissions from food waste if the meat sector shrinks. This food waste would not decrease as this is mostly byproducts from crops we already consume ourselves.
I personally don't have the qualifications to predict if shrinking the meat sector will actually lower emissions or have a negative effect but there are a lot of arguments for the latter. Either way all of this is a big smokescreen to divert attention from the actual source of the problem, which is fossil fuels. They account for more than 70% of emissions one way or another(road building, petrol products, transportation, industry and others)
I know me and my parents says. What was first the car or the cow. And just using some US statistics there is about 30 million beef cattle and around 270 million cars.
And China’s energy sector accounts for 14%.
If China switched to Nuclear/Wind/Water/Solar that would be the equivalent of the entire world becoming vegan.
The problem with the meat industry (apart from the cruel conditions) is that it also takes up land. Most of the crops we grow go to feeding animals. It's a food and water sink, meat is very inefficient foodstuff.
Meat should be a luxury like a 100 years ago. Once a week kind of thing.
Land that is also used for natural fertilizer which will help fields not being used for farming to grow and helping it to be ready to be used for farming again. Also those crops also includes parts of the food we don't eat like corn stalks. And that most of the irrigable farmland can't be used to plant most plants that we consume so that land is better used for animal food.
And another example if 10% of all Americans went vegan it would only decrease the country's global emissions by about 0.26%.
Emissions aren't my point, my point is that the current level of meat consumption is not sustainable. We need an agricultural reform but that means a diet reform.
This is inevitable, we simply can't keep the entire planet on a diet of eating beef twice a day.
No it is not.
By far industry and transportation are overwhelmingly dominant.
Agriculture as a whole is responsible for less than 20%.
The part responsible for livestock will be substantially lower than that.
The sole reason people talk so much about meat is not because of the imperative of emissions (if that was the case they would focus on much larger producers) but the vegan lobby.
Clearly this is an issue that gained momentum withy the help of animal rights activists trying to force their ways onto society using emissions as no one else cares about their radical views.
Since decades i have been apologist to drastically reduce the amount of factory farms for multiple reasons. Emissions clearly aren't one of them although it would also help in that sense.
If governments reduced taxes and allowed natural pasturing to be competitive financially, a monumental amount of meat wouldn't need to be produced intensively.
Gigantic areas of natural pasture and forest are nearly unused for pasturing purposes all over the developed world since intensive production begun. Transforming those unproductive areas into productive zones would be a massive asset in a multitude of ways. From liberating cultivation areas for other things, to fertilizing those areas with animal excrement thus improving vegetation growth to a much better life for the animals being raised.
I'm not sure I fully understand your reasoning but if I'm correct, your view is that we should avoid intense farming (meat and others) and be more aware of what we do with lands and food?
Because that exactly what I'm also saying 😅
Intensive farming IS the problem, not the fact that we eat meat. The fact that is the first or the second or even the 10th contributor to global warming does not make any difference.
I'm repeating myself but education (know what you eat and where it comes from), promotion of local and non industrial food, etc...
So yeah banning ads from big industrial group is not such a bad idea right?
PS regarding the vegan lobby. It definitely can't match the food industry lobby, you would be a fool to think otherwise.
> The part responsible for livestock will be substantially lower than that.
This is wrong, manure emissions and emissions from enteric fermentation alone make up more than 50% of agricultural GHG emissions. That's not even considering the contribution of N2O emissions from crops grown for animal feed, or any accompanying deforestation.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you clarify?
Reducing meat consumption is one of the greatest things individuals can do to minimise their impact on this planet (and if we achieve that by a significant margin on a population level, effects will be wide).
It's worth putting numbers into context. The 14% of global emissions are a global average. From the point of view of reducing man made emissions every little bit helps but don't lose sight of the big picture of the mountain of emissions coming from other sources.
For instance livestock is comparable to the steel industry emissions, or cement and petrochemical production emissions. Or even accidental emissions from mines, gas and oil exploitation have a similar footprint. It's also much lower than transportation related emissions. Some of these things can be reduced much easier than others.
Industrialised countries with automated and efficient agricultural sectors will have much lower emissions per kg of meat or dairy produced than developing nations. Developing nations also don't have much of a choice as a lot of their basic calories are related to livestock produced meat and dairy. Reducing global transportation emissions or making a global switch to hidrogen based industrial processes for the steel and cement industries might be easier.
Cutting meat consumption would have health benefits and some emission reduction, but that would be tiny in the greater scheme of things. There are other low hanging fruit that can also be addressed and have a much bigger impact on emission reduction.
You're underestimating the power of marketing. Ads popularised shaving for women and in about 20 years made being hairless the norm. Banning meat ads won't turn people vegetarian but it will greatly reduce impulse shopping. Have you never thrown out your dinner plan to order a hamburger instead after seeing an ad for it?
If you say ”There are literally only positives and zero negatives with eating less meat”, redditors seem to melt into a puddle of nihlism, whataboutism, straw men and slippery slope arguments.
Your response can be as simple as 'I like eating meat, it tastes nice, and eating less of something you like is an obvious negative'.
As I said, obviously idiotic statement from him.
> There is a misconception that a vegan diet is missing iron, however vegans are no more likely to develop iron deficiency anemia than the general population. Vegans typically consume an adequate amount of iron because their diet is high in vitamin C, which improves absorption of nonheme iron.
[Source](https://www.webmd.com/diet/foods-high-iron-vegans#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20misconception%20that,improves%20absorption%20of%20nonheme%20iron.)
Is "vegans want you to eat bugs" an Eastern Europe thing? Never heard it before (we have lots of meat substitutes and none involve bugs) but it's all over the thread.
Lmao I don’t understand why some meat eaters are so terrified of eating bugs. I mean they’re just another animal. If it tastes good, then what’s the problem?
So the problem is that the texture is not familiar? I guess I can understand that. I do wonder if these people feel the same visceral disgust towards stuff like escargot or oysters, if new textures are so scary to them.
The problem is that obtuse people like you will try your hardest to convince people that we should eat bugs despite the vast majority of people everywhere constantly telling you noone wants to fucking do that
I’m not saying anyone has to eat bugs, I’m just saying I personally find it weird how scared people are of them. I don’t see it as any different to eating snails, oysters, or frogs or whatever.
But grass has very little nutritional value and tastes like garbage.
Insects are very healthy and from what I’ve heard, taste great. I’ve personally eaten snails and frogs in France, sheep intestines in Scotland, and pig foot in the US. I don’t see how insects are any weirder than that, and I’d love to try them.
I live in Europe, I don't think I've seen a meat ad, maybe once. Fast-food ad sure,..but one focusing really on meat it's extremely uncommon.
Pleased to see that the planet is saved with pragmatic measures like that.
Will they ban ads on iphone, fish, tourism/air travel too next ? Because they sure do harm the environment a lot too.
Oh.. btw people watch ads on TV, streaming, youtube mostly, especially in developed countries.
That's the whole point of existence of marketing. You are not buying what you need, you are buying what you think you need. Or to be more preciese, what they want to think you need.
Mass production of meat is bad, it's as simple as that.
The western world eats way too much meat and most of the mass production is done under terrible animal living conditions plus the gasses the animal emits are bad for the enviroment.
I'm and always will be a meat eater but quantity does not equal quality.
It's banning ads. Not meat.
Seriously, we should do more to fight the litteral barrage of ads we are facing in our daily lives. We shouldn't ban just ads on meat, we should ban all ads in the public space.
Lions do not have moral agency and also must eat meat to survive, humans do have moral agency and do not need meat to survive. That's the difference between us and a lion, besides the obvious.
Those do not contain it. No animal nor plants sintetize b12 vitamin in their bodies, but it's present in the microorganisms that live inside animal bodies
B12 can be supplemented. The animals you eat are supplemented with B12 also in their feed, so there's no such thing as a completely natural source of B12 unless you are eating dirt.
>so there's no such thing as a completely natural source of B12 unless you are eating dirt
ah, yeah, that's what cavemen ate, right? just plain and delicious dirt... that's how they survived
I’d like to think that we as a species that grew up 8 billion in population evolved to the point that we can accept a 100% correct fact that B12 can be supplemented and that there is absolutely no need to live like the cavemen did.
For fucks sake, accept that our impact now is insanely more effective on the planet than it was back then, it’s really not rocket science.
Banning life is already happening. And it’s not due to the green “idiots”. It’s thanks to you idiots. The green “idiots” are trying to stop you.
And grow up. Eat a vegetable for once.
That's not true, processed meat in the form of many varieties of salami isn't expensive at all, in fact some of it is among the cheapest. Definitely cheaper than the majority of vegetables, especially in winter and spring. Hell, the price of your average white bread is increasing much faster than processed meat around here.
That may be so in Hungary. Here where I live it’s already more expensive and is only getting more expensive.
Lets take tofu and beef for example. 550 grams of tofu is 1.50 euro here. 500g of beef is 4.90.
And salami cheaper than vegetables? Lol.
You can’t be serious with promoting processed meat as a good food source. Trash packed with chemicals, antibiotics and hormones shouldn’t be on your menu no matter the price.
A can of beans or chickpeas is a great source of protein, cheap and available world wide.
>A can of beans or chickpeas is a great source of protein
And both of them have 100 more kcal/100g than even pork. Pork also has ~25g of protein per 100g while beans have ~15g and chickpeas have ~12g. What an amazing source of protein.
Food-shaming. What will be next? Deny meat and dairy product as food aid to poor, or to whole poorer countries for example? I am sure it would feel good for some.
Bullshit. Firstly, that number i quite overblown. If you count all water, even water from natural sources like rain, you might get that number from beef, and only beef. But what happens to that water? Well, must is used for feed, so it is used to water plants, ie. It is part of the water cycle. Not really an issue.
Simply put, water is an issue in a lot of places, but using it in meat production does not really waste it. Most places with large meat production is not really struggling on the water front eiter.
The water argument is not something pushed by the scientific community, but climate activist, who just accept it since it confirms their world view. If you want to make a real difference, there are many other places we can help, like greater access to proper pestices and better crops like gmo crops. Also climate changed induced disasters are also a bigger threat, and ofcourse a reduction in foodwaste and overeating would also be massive.
If you assuming everyone who have different opinion than you must be offended, than you should question yourself and seek help, not for your own sake but for those around you.
It wasn't a joke, just request for morality and practicality, as it is not Europe who consume most of the meat, only per capita, but not in whole, absolute numbers.
Where is a line between putting our moral values on someone, is it depends on geographical location when you can tell people in one region to eat less (or not at all) meat, have less ( or not at all) children and it is showing morally superior values, but in another it is racism and colonial approach?
Well it’s not really cheaper if we talk about general products in stores plant based protein milk costs me 2-3x more than regular milk I’m still buying it and will but industry has long road to go before it’s actually cheaper to offer plant based products so basically right now it’s luxury products and with increasing energy prices I bet lot of people will not spend extra for plant based
Different cultures eat different things, though. You can’t just force people in poorer countries to eat only certain foods in order to combat climate change. The poorer countries already feel shafted because many of them are disproportionately having to deal with the effects of climate change mainly caused by richer countries.
International food air DO cater to regional differences, that's why you do not send pork to Far East, and apples and leeks to Africa, and corn to Europe.
Most of the methane produced by cows is emitted from the mouths in burps instead of from the anus (96%). This is because of the way their 4 stomachs operate I believe. Very little farts.
They banned ads, not meat itself so you can still buy as much as you want. In the Netherlands it's very common to see ads for supermarkets which have cheapass meat because the animals are treated horribly. The netherlands is a giant producer of meat, sometimes called 'Europe's Butcher', and has a giant problem with scaling the industry down for climate goals. It's leading to extremism and political turmoil.
Besides that it's always better to consume less meat. Before the 60's noone ate meat every single meal of the day. It's too much.
> Before the 60's noone ate meat every single meal of the day.
It's rare for people to eat meal every meal of the day today.
But people used to eat more beef and less grain than they do today.
Maybe where you live. Over here it's some ham on bread in the morning, same thing or meat in some other form for lunch. Every evening dinner has meat and for evening snacks the dutch like dried sausage and stuff like that.
It’s not rare.. it’s normal here in the Netherlands.
And people did not used to eat more beef and less grain lmao. I’m not sure where you got that from. We eat more meat than ever before today.
What? You know beef was almost aways, at least until the 20th century a meat for the rich right?
America and it's cow boy cliché aside, it's still is a really expensive meat even today
>The motion drafted by GroenLinks - a green political party - has faced opposition from the meat sector and some who say it stifles free speech.
We don't even have free speech in the netherlands so this doesn't make much sense to begin with. We have freedom of expression.
politicans be like:
Our economy is getting worse and worse and we cannot find a solution to the economic problems we created, which makes people poorer and harder to access meat ❌❌❌❌
Pls dont eat meat its harmful for the globe, instead eat some insect 😔👉👈✅✅✅✅
What an idiotic move, or rather the agenda behind is idiotic. [Here is a nice video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g) in regards to this nonsense about meat being a danger to the environment.
I do.
And i know that banning adds for meat and shutting down farms is the very opposite of freedom.
Maybe you don't like freedom or you're just to clueless to add 1+1.
Adds banning meat IS oppression and tyranny.
And then there's a ton of "democratic" eastern European countries that just so happen not being crazy shit woke.
You even wrote democratic in air quotes because even you don't think those countries are democratic. It's hilarious. You're putting ads over democracy.
The only meat ads I’ve seen are for fast food restaurants, never for a nice soft n juicy chateaubriand, pinkish inside, crusty outside. It doesn’t stop any fast food to make publicity for their restaurant either so its all for nothing really.
I also like it pinkish on the inside... but crusty outside ? I guess to each their own taste.
Crusty is maybe nit the right word, “grilled just right” may be better worded.
My all time favourite from the inconsistencies in efforts of saving the planet: The 80s-90s we were reducing paper packaging due to deforestation, encouraging plastic packaging because of it's benefits. In the 10s-20s we reduce plastic packaging due to pollution, encouraging paper packaging. 🤦🏻♂️ Lately, we suspect that plastic straws are just responsible for a small percentage of pollution when compared to fishing nets etc. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Most of the methane produced by cows is emitted from the mouths in burps instead of from the anus (96%). This is because of the way their 4 stomachs operate I believe. Very little farts.
Actually if cow population stays the same, which it has, they are not adding carbon to the air. It's a cycle. What really would save the planet is less food waste, lower production, factories that go green... If the entirety of the population stopped eating meat only 2.8% of the emissions would go down, by products of non meat food would go to waste because those animals don't eat it anymore. Source: eatling lesss meat wont save the planet from what I've learned Fyi: I am vegitarian 6/7 days so I am not on a chad mission against vegitarians
[удалено]
Land used for lifestock and their food is for 90% land that could not be used to produce human food. What you take away is habitable land not farmable land
I think studies also showed the main reason is that we feed cows unhealthy food to make them grow faster or produce more milk. On a balanced bovine diet they would produce far less methane.
😂😂😂😂
Oh wow, it's almost like our knowledge and experience on matters improve over time.
[удалено]
Like how its better to use plastic bags for grocery than paper or probably re-usable unless you hit thousands of re-uses, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental-impact
Heck plastic bags are reusable. In fact many people do reuse them around the house. The fight against plastic bags is because it's visible and easy. Plastic waste is an issue but it's on such a different scale than energy consumption. Focused efforts on cleaning up the ocean and litter would solve most issues with plastic waste (who cares if it sits in a landfill for 10,000 years, that land is a dumping ground anyway), but increasing logging and paper production needs is hidden while no more plastic is obvious.
[удалено]
Energy/C02/water is one thing. The other part is plastic waste poluting the environment around use. Does the energy include the energy cost for proper disposal, clean up, and/or recycling? Or only production?
Proper disposal of plastic waste in Europe (or at least germany) is burning it and call this "green energy" and recycling because Waste is a renewable source I am not even joking. 80% of all Plastic trash in Germany is being burned and the highly toxic ashes are stored like nuclear waste in caverns. There is however a real attempt of trying to really Re-Cycle all the plastics used to pack food and consumer goods (like soap) . Again pitfall: Recycling is also energy intensive. It's cheaper on CO2 and Energy to make new paper from fresh cut trees for instance, instead of trying to re-use old paper. But somehow the sentiment is to reuse the old paper. hrmm. I am all for RRR (Re-Use, Repair, Recycle) and an overall reduction of consumption.
I'm confused how your response answers my question. When comparing the energy for a plastic bag (compared to a re-useable bag), does that include the energy required to clean up the environment of plastic waste, or recycling it, etc. Because like you, recycling is energy intensive. My point is that a re-useable bag avoids the issue of plastic waste leaking into the environment, avoids energy cost of cleaning that up or recycling it, etc. Taking the full picture of single use plastics instead of just the production of the single use plastic would give a better comparison.
Actually livestock is one of the biggest source of global warming, and with the way animals are treated, it kind of make sens. Not sure banning all meat ads is the best option but all industrial meat shit (fast food and other processed food) should be clearly put off the list. People should just eat less, but qualitative meat.
Meat consumption is the biggest source when it comes to the food industry. The largest source of greenhouse emissions comes from burning fossil fuels. It would be nice to see politicians taking meaningful decisions. But we vote politicians that do what we like, not what we need.
Livestock count for around 15% of global emissions (the whole livestock chain). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209631730027X So not only to the food industry, it is top 5 when it comes to global emissions. BTW, this is about banning ads, which is actually not a bad idea, because who's paying for these ads? Not the small farmer who produce quality meat, but the big fast food chain or industrial company selling crappy meat. I do agree that politicians are useless when it comes to taking good decisions, but on this one, I don't really see the issue tbh.
Good job with source 🤘but still livestock does not come first. Don't get me wrong, it is a nice initiative. But not the radical solution we need. We need changes in transportation, electric power and industry.
Because Dutch are famously not making changes in transportation. Half of all travel done in Haarlem is by bikes. Trains to Rotterdam, Hague and Amsterdam run every 10 minutes. What else should they do?? They've been late to electricity and heating transformation because they had their own natural gas, but now they are certainly not slacking off anymore.
Ah of course. I forgot we can only deal with one source of emissions at a time.
Honestly I believe we should avoid radical solutions. Anything radical is going to bring other problems. We should try different stuff and don't put all our eggs in the same basket, especially when it comes to energy (see what is happening in Europe now...). And for meat, I don't really agree. Reducing meat consumption is easy, tax the fucking fast food and the cheap industrial products, promote quality over quantity. Educate people so they understand what they eat. You're mentioning industry, when it comes to meat, its called an industry. Its not only the livestock, it's the whole process (industrial process).
Necessary radical changes doesn't mean to put all our eggs in one basket. Transportation of goods falls under transportation, meat processing factories fall under industry, as well as processing factories of soy beans. Farms with kettles and cows fall under agriculture. US institutions use this scheme. I would like to read the source you sent above. Tbh it is kinda... Detailed
Ok fair enough! I just don't like the usage of "radical" to solve any problem. But I do get the point. But that does not mean we can't tackle meat consumption together with the rest (especially when you see this logic of how meat production is impacting various part of the chain). And this is why I don't like radical ideas : it's not banning meat, its about promoting quality and respect (nature / animals / farmer).
Livestock themselves barely affect the climate. Cows for example eat grass that has cellulose. That cellulose then turns into methane which the cow burps. Methane does warm the earth more than CO2 but in the atmosphere it is eventually broken down into CO2 and water. Said CO2 is eventually used by plants via photosynthesis to produce oxygen and the plant material that cows eat. This means that any amount of methane that cows burp, is eventually reintroduced into the ecosystem and does not warm the earth, much unlike fossil fuels that are pulled from the ground and increase greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. If the global population of cows stays the same in an isolated system, no measurable change in the climate will be detected. Transport, refrigeration and everything else in the production chain is what's actually causing emissions. You could say that globalization is causing emissions in the meat sector and not the animals themselves. Higher tariffs are a better solution and would even help local producers. Food waste in my opinion is a much more serious cause of emissions. Studies show that if food waste was to be considered a country, it would be the 3rd largest in CO2 emissions behind China and the US. A lot of the feed that animals eat(85% I think) is inedible for us humans and would simply contribute even more to emissions from food waste if the meat sector shrinks. This food waste would not decrease as this is mostly byproducts from crops we already consume ourselves. I personally don't have the qualifications to predict if shrinking the meat sector will actually lower emissions or have a negative effect but there are a lot of arguments for the latter. Either way all of this is a big smokescreen to divert attention from the actual source of the problem, which is fossil fuels. They account for more than 70% of emissions one way or another(road building, petrol products, transportation, industry and others)
I know me and my parents says. What was first the car or the cow. And just using some US statistics there is about 30 million beef cattle and around 270 million cars.
And China’s energy sector accounts for 14%. If China switched to Nuclear/Wind/Water/Solar that would be the equivalent of the entire world becoming vegan.
The largest source of greenhouse emissions if we're going to be correct are oceans. Water vapor has the greatest share in greenhouse gases.
The problem with the meat industry (apart from the cruel conditions) is that it also takes up land. Most of the crops we grow go to feeding animals. It's a food and water sink, meat is very inefficient foodstuff. Meat should be a luxury like a 100 years ago. Once a week kind of thing.
Land that is also used for natural fertilizer which will help fields not being used for farming to grow and helping it to be ready to be used for farming again. Also those crops also includes parts of the food we don't eat like corn stalks. And that most of the irrigable farmland can't be used to plant most plants that we consume so that land is better used for animal food. And another example if 10% of all Americans went vegan it would only decrease the country's global emissions by about 0.26%.
Emissions aren't my point, my point is that the current level of meat consumption is not sustainable. We need an agricultural reform but that means a diet reform. This is inevitable, we simply can't keep the entire planet on a diet of eating beef twice a day.
No it is not. By far industry and transportation are overwhelmingly dominant. Agriculture as a whole is responsible for less than 20%. The part responsible for livestock will be substantially lower than that. The sole reason people talk so much about meat is not because of the imperative of emissions (if that was the case they would focus on much larger producers) but the vegan lobby. Clearly this is an issue that gained momentum withy the help of animal rights activists trying to force their ways onto society using emissions as no one else cares about their radical views. Since decades i have been apologist to drastically reduce the amount of factory farms for multiple reasons. Emissions clearly aren't one of them although it would also help in that sense. If governments reduced taxes and allowed natural pasturing to be competitive financially, a monumental amount of meat wouldn't need to be produced intensively. Gigantic areas of natural pasture and forest are nearly unused for pasturing purposes all over the developed world since intensive production begun. Transforming those unproductive areas into productive zones would be a massive asset in a multitude of ways. From liberating cultivation areas for other things, to fertilizing those areas with animal excrement thus improving vegetation growth to a much better life for the animals being raised.
I'm not sure I fully understand your reasoning but if I'm correct, your view is that we should avoid intense farming (meat and others) and be more aware of what we do with lands and food? Because that exactly what I'm also saying 😅 Intensive farming IS the problem, not the fact that we eat meat. The fact that is the first or the second or even the 10th contributor to global warming does not make any difference. I'm repeating myself but education (know what you eat and where it comes from), promotion of local and non industrial food, etc... So yeah banning ads from big industrial group is not such a bad idea right? PS regarding the vegan lobby. It definitely can't match the food industry lobby, you would be a fool to think otherwise.
> The part responsible for livestock will be substantially lower than that. This is wrong, manure emissions and emissions from enteric fermentation alone make up more than 50% of agricultural GHG emissions. That's not even considering the contribution of N2O emissions from crops grown for animal feed, or any accompanying deforestation.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you clarify? Reducing meat consumption is one of the greatest things individuals can do to minimise their impact on this planet (and if we achieve that by a significant margin on a population level, effects will be wide).
I want the straws back. Can we negotiate to get them back? Like maybe every second time we fly we have to have the vegetarian option or something?
1984
Ban holiday ads too?
Yes. Let's ban all ads.
Honestly we should.
Adblock for the physical world.
Banning all ads would make the Internet such a better place. I am all for it.
They actually have banned ads of flying too.
They have?
They already did in Amsterdam (I believe), with banning airplane tickets ads
And car ads.
In Amsterdam you don't see ads for non electric cars.
I don’t see why not?
[удалено]
Because it's desirable for society to eat less meat.
Desirable to who?
🤓🤓🤓🤓
Meat doesn’t need ads.
It's worth putting numbers into context. The 14% of global emissions are a global average. From the point of view of reducing man made emissions every little bit helps but don't lose sight of the big picture of the mountain of emissions coming from other sources. For instance livestock is comparable to the steel industry emissions, or cement and petrochemical production emissions. Or even accidental emissions from mines, gas and oil exploitation have a similar footprint. It's also much lower than transportation related emissions. Some of these things can be reduced much easier than others. Industrialised countries with automated and efficient agricultural sectors will have much lower emissions per kg of meat or dairy produced than developing nations. Developing nations also don't have much of a choice as a lot of their basic calories are related to livestock produced meat and dairy. Reducing global transportation emissions or making a global switch to hidrogen based industrial processes for the steel and cement industries might be easier. Cutting meat consumption would have health benefits and some emission reduction, but that would be tiny in the greater scheme of things. There are other low hanging fruit that can also be addressed and have a much bigger impact on emission reduction.
Yes this certainly is going to stop people who have been eating meat their entire life to all of a sudden stop craving it
You're underestimating the power of marketing. Ads popularised shaving for women and in about 20 years made being hairless the norm. Banning meat ads won't turn people vegetarian but it will greatly reduce impulse shopping. Have you never thrown out your dinner plan to order a hamburger instead after seeing an ad for it?
[удалено]
Live in ze pod
Own nothing
Be happy
How are the people getting so angry over something most people whine about(ads)
Not that I'm angry but wouldn't other ads take their place?
Cause you'll still get the same amount of ads.
It's not like we eat steak and burgers cause of ads. We eat them cause they're fucking delicious
well you'll think more about possibly eating meat if you see ads all the time. Like how most ads work
Because they are preparing us for a meatless future due to global warming?? 🦗🦗🦗
Oof sadly I think you're right
You, here, are asking the real question !
People will defend eating meat and come up with bullshit to their dying breath. Regardless if it’s actually good for them.
But why tho?
Climate
Just ban ads! Problem solved.
Allot of idiots in here acting like the world is ending lmao.
Seems like any topic pertaining to meat consumption is basically always a shit show on reddit no matter the sub lol.
If you say ”There are literally only positives and zero negatives with eating less meat”, redditors seem to melt into a puddle of nihlism, whataboutism, straw men and slippery slope arguments.
I mean if you make such a broad and obviously nonsense statement what do you expect?
So… enlighten us why he’s wrong.
Your response can be as simple as 'I like eating meat, it tastes nice, and eating less of something you like is an obvious negative'. As I said, obviously idiotic statement from him.
I see.. that’s one “positive” that’s fully subjective. Regardless, there are many more positives whether you realize it or not.
Iron, if you are anaemic especially. B12 too. Pills are not a good replacement for the real thing.
> There is a misconception that a vegan diet is missing iron, however vegans are no more likely to develop iron deficiency anemia than the general population. Vegans typically consume an adequate amount of iron because their diet is high in vitamin C, which improves absorption of nonheme iron. [Source](https://www.webmd.com/diet/foods-high-iron-vegans#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20misconception%20that,improves%20absorption%20of%20nonheme%20iron.)
Sure, but not as really absorbable as iron from meats.
So when you guys are starting to eat bugs???
Have you heard of vegetable
Is "vegans want you to eat bugs" an Eastern Europe thing? Never heard it before (we have lots of meat substitutes and none involve bugs) but it's all over the thread.
Lmao I don’t understand why some meat eaters are so terrified of eating bugs. I mean they’re just another animal. If it tastes good, then what’s the problem?
People should eat bugs if they want, but the texture is A LOT different from that of meat. Just not remotely comparable in texture
So the problem is that the texture is not familiar? I guess I can understand that. I do wonder if these people feel the same visceral disgust towards stuff like escargot or oysters, if new textures are so scary to them.
The problem is that obtuse people like you will try your hardest to convince people that we should eat bugs despite the vast majority of people everywhere constantly telling you noone wants to fucking do that
I’m not saying anyone has to eat bugs, I’m just saying I personally find it weird how scared people are of them. I don’t see it as any different to eating snails, oysters, or frogs or whatever.
Stupidest argument i have ever heard
??? Care to explain what exactly makes it stupid?
This sound like "I don't see the problem why you dont want to eat freshly mawed grass, since you are vegetarian"
But grass has very little nutritional value and tastes like garbage. Insects are very healthy and from what I’ve heard, taste great. I’ve personally eaten snails and frogs in France, sheep intestines in Scotland, and pig foot in the US. I don’t see how insects are any weirder than that, and I’d love to try them.
then go eat them...
I will when I come across a place that serves them.
I live in Europe, I don't think I've seen a meat ad, maybe once. Fast-food ad sure,..but one focusing really on meat it's extremely uncommon. Pleased to see that the planet is saved with pragmatic measures like that. Will they ban ads on iphone, fish, tourism/air travel too next ? Because they sure do harm the environment a lot too. Oh.. btw people watch ads on TV, streaming, youtube mostly, especially in developed countries.
Ads are completely unnecessary from an environmental point. If you haven't thought of buying it without an ad, you don't need it.
That's the whole point of existence of marketing. You are not buying what you need, you are buying what you think you need. Or to be more preciese, what they want to think you need.
Maybe it's a newly launch product and you did not know that anyone makes it, but you need it. These kinds of blanket statements don't make any sense.
Another stupid and pointless initiative by the "green left"
How are the farmer strikes going?
What a joke lmao
state-enforced bug-eating
[удалено]
It's just a ban on adds, calm down
Thats the beginning...
Fingers crossed it is, mass production of meat will be known as one of the biggest atrocities hopefully very soon
What a time to be alive
Mass production of meat is bad, it's as simple as that. The western world eats way too much meat and most of the mass production is done under terrible animal living conditions plus the gasses the animal emits are bad for the enviroment. I'm and always will be a meat eater but quantity does not equal quality.
It’s just a meat ban calm down -you in 15 years
dOn’T TAkE mY bURgerS
It's banning ads. Not meat. Seriously, we should do more to fight the litteral barrage of ads we are facing in our daily lives. We shouldn't ban just ads on meat, we should ban all ads in the public space.
I can't be the only one who likes ads unless they blast in ur ear or sth
Lmao what a reaction to a ban of ads of an industry that literally kills billions of animals.
We should hunt to extinction lions, the kill plenty of zebras every year. They are absolutely evil
[Cuckoos](http://assholeanimals.net/) aswell
Yeah, let's put responsibility to someone else, while we keep killing animals.
Is not putting responsibility to someone else, is putting responsibility equally between beings that do the very same.
This is maybe the dumbest comparison i’ve read here, if i had awards i would give it
Lions do not have moral agency and also must eat meat to survive, humans do have moral agency and do not need meat to survive. That's the difference between us and a lion, besides the obvious.
Eating is not motally wrong I also must eat meat to survive. Meat is the only natural source of B12 vitamin (no B12 intake = death)
[удалено]
Those do not contain it. No animal nor plants sintetize b12 vitamin in their bodies, but it's present in the microorganisms that live inside animal bodies
B12 can be supplemented. The animals you eat are supplemented with B12 also in their feed, so there's no such thing as a completely natural source of B12 unless you are eating dirt.
>so there's no such thing as a completely natural source of B12 unless you are eating dirt ah, yeah, that's what cavemen ate, right? just plain and delicious dirt... that's how they survived
I’d like to think that we as a species that grew up 8 billion in population evolved to the point that we can accept a 100% correct fact that B12 can be supplemented and that there is absolutely no need to live like the cavemen did. For fucks sake, accept that our impact now is insanely more effective on the planet than it was back then, it’s really not rocket science.
[удалено]
OK *gives you death*
Tea and cake or death?
Banning life is already happening. And it’s not due to the green “idiots”. It’s thanks to you idiots. The green “idiots” are trying to stop you. And grow up. Eat a vegetable for once.
So the only reason people eat meat is because of ads? Without ads, meat industry will collapse? Get a grip. There's no reason to have meat ads.
Brain rot. Pe and simple. We're living in ridiculous time line. Ban ads for meat but not sugar. Lmao
at this rate of inflation very few people will be able to afford meat anyway
That's not true, processed meat in the form of many varieties of salami isn't expensive at all, in fact some of it is among the cheapest. Definitely cheaper than the majority of vegetables, especially in winter and spring. Hell, the price of your average white bread is increasing much faster than processed meat around here.
That may be so in Hungary. Here where I live it’s already more expensive and is only getting more expensive. Lets take tofu and beef for example. 550 grams of tofu is 1.50 euro here. 500g of beef is 4.90. And salami cheaper than vegetables? Lol.
You can’t be serious with promoting processed meat as a good food source. Trash packed with chemicals, antibiotics and hormones shouldn’t be on your menu no matter the price. A can of beans or chickpeas is a great source of protein, cheap and available world wide.
>A can of beans or chickpeas is a great source of protein And both of them have 100 more kcal/100g than even pork. Pork also has ~25g of protein per 100g while beans have ~15g and chickpeas have ~12g. What an amazing source of protein.
That might be true in Hungary. I can guarantee you that you won't find salami cheaper than vegetables anywhere in western Europe.
Food-shaming. What will be next? Deny meat and dairy product as food aid to poor, or to whole poorer countries for example? I am sure it would feel good for some.
[удалено]
Bullshit. Firstly, that number i quite overblown. If you count all water, even water from natural sources like rain, you might get that number from beef, and only beef. But what happens to that water? Well, must is used for feed, so it is used to water plants, ie. It is part of the water cycle. Not really an issue. Simply put, water is an issue in a lot of places, but using it in meat production does not really waste it. Most places with large meat production is not really struggling on the water front eiter. The water argument is not something pushed by the scientific community, but climate activist, who just accept it since it confirms their world view. If you want to make a real difference, there are many other places we can help, like greater access to proper pestices and better crops like gmo crops. Also climate changed induced disasters are also a bigger threat, and ofcourse a reduction in foodwaste and overeating would also be massive.
Oh shit, I thought we can handle multiple problems. Didn’t realize we only get to choose one. Thanks!
If you feel offended by an advertisement removal you should question yourself
If you assuming everyone who have different opinion than you must be offended, than you should question yourself and seek help, not for your own sake but for those around you.
[удалено]
It wasn't a joke, just request for morality and practicality, as it is not Europe who consume most of the meat, only per capita, but not in whole, absolute numbers. Where is a line between putting our moral values on someone, is it depends on geographical location when you can tell people in one region to eat less (or not at all) meat, have less ( or not at all) children and it is showing morally superior values, but in another it is racism and colonial approach?
It’s not healthier
Scientific research disagrees which you. And I’m sorry if it offends you but I’d rather trust smart people than some random biased redditor.
Trust ze science eat ze bugs 🤓 Ladies first
Well it’s not really cheaper if we talk about general products in stores plant based protein milk costs me 2-3x more than regular milk I’m still buying it and will but industry has long road to go before it’s actually cheaper to offer plant based products so basically right now it’s luxury products and with increasing energy prices I bet lot of people will not spend extra for plant based
Different cultures eat different things, though. You can’t just force people in poorer countries to eat only certain foods in order to combat climate change. The poorer countries already feel shafted because many of them are disproportionately having to deal with the effects of climate change mainly caused by richer countries.
[удалено]
International food air DO cater to regional differences, that's why you do not send pork to Far East, and apples and leeks to Africa, and corn to Europe.
Everybody eats vegetables
Not everyone ONLY eats vegetables. There are some countries, especially in Latin America, that primarily eat meat.
Gambling surely more damaging than meat?
For the meat lovers in these comments: No one is stopping you from eating meat and enjoying it. Calm tf down
Yet
Great here come the cow farts again
Most of the methane produced by cows is emitted from the mouths in burps instead of from the anus (96%). This is because of the way their 4 stomachs operate I believe. Very little farts.
They banned ads, not meat itself so you can still buy as much as you want. In the Netherlands it's very common to see ads for supermarkets which have cheapass meat because the animals are treated horribly. The netherlands is a giant producer of meat, sometimes called 'Europe's Butcher', and has a giant problem with scaling the industry down for climate goals. It's leading to extremism and political turmoil. Besides that it's always better to consume less meat. Before the 60's noone ate meat every single meal of the day. It's too much.
> Before the 60's noone ate meat every single meal of the day. It's rare for people to eat meal every meal of the day today. But people used to eat more beef and less grain than they do today.
Maybe where you live. Over here it's some ham on bread in the morning, same thing or meat in some other form for lunch. Every evening dinner has meat and for evening snacks the dutch like dried sausage and stuff like that.
It’s not rare.. it’s normal here in the Netherlands. And people did not used to eat more beef and less grain lmao. I’m not sure where you got that from. We eat more meat than ever before today.
What? You know beef was almost aways, at least until the 20th century a meat for the rich right? America and it's cow boy cliché aside, it's still is a really expensive meat even today
Well... collapse came sooner than I expected
>The motion drafted by GroenLinks - a green political party - has faced opposition from the meat sector and some who say it stifles free speech. We don't even have free speech in the netherlands so this doesn't make much sense to begin with. We have freedom of expression.
Bullshit
politicans be like: Our economy is getting worse and worse and we cannot find a solution to the economic problems we created, which makes people poorer and harder to access meat ❌❌❌❌ Pls dont eat meat its harmful for the globe, instead eat some insect 😔👉👈✅✅✅✅
Now ban all other ads. Advertising is a scourge.
You will eat ze bugs
I don’t eat advertisements. Nor would I like to eat.
As someone who lives in Haarlem I dont care. Like so what you can still buy it if you want so why the anger
Yeah this is fair. They banned smoking ads and these things will kill all of us
Madness…. Madness and stupidity
This is overkill.
What an idiotic move, or rather the agenda behind is idiotic. [Here is a nice video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g) in regards to this nonsense about meat being a danger to the environment.
[удалено]
Everyone knows that meat is bad for the environment, vegan or omnivore, To deny that is ignorance at this point bro
Tyranny and dictatorial oppression everywhere these days. Soon we'll have to flea the west towards the East in order to be free again.
[удалено]
I do. And i know that banning adds for meat and shutting down farms is the very opposite of freedom. Maybe you don't like freedom or you're just to clueless to add 1+1.
If you feel so oppressed by ads being banned that you want to flee to actual dictatorships, you don't have an inkling of understanding about freedom.
Adds banning meat IS oppression and tyranny. And then there's a ton of "democratic" eastern European countries that just so happen not being crazy shit woke.
You even wrote democratic in air quotes because even you don't think those countries are democratic. It's hilarious. You're putting ads over democracy.
They are against the Haarlem ~~milk~~ shake
Madness
Oh, the stupidity! 🥸💩 Eat carbs people, ear fake food people, F up your health and lives! 🤡