• Chocrates@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’m watching the new climate town video as I see this.

    Glad the media is still telling us it is our fault as consumers while industry and governments actively work against us.

    Yes eating plants is better for the environment and your body. Yes I try to eat mostly plants and I encourage you all to try it, but Capitalism is what is killing us and eating a salad isnt going to fix it.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      Actually, quite the opposite. As long as you buy beef, cattle will continue to be a major driver of climate change. Under capitalism, it only gets produced because you buy it

      • metaStatic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        3 months ago

        isn’t it heavily subsidized? I appreciate that you’re using a textbook definition of capitalism but that’s not how anything actually works.

        • Pan_Ziemniak@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Indeed! I would add to this, we also heavily subsidize corn and wheat production as well. We waste an inordinate amount of what should be prairie land just so we can put up a bunch of beyond inefficient farms so that the rich can continue making money off of what theyve already been profiting off of.

          Id also like to remind everyone that this sort of farming killed our prairies. In effect, this puts us at risk of another dust bowl due to the difference in size of root systems between corn/wheat and prairies tall grasses, and exacerbates the climate crisis further as prairies are incredibly efficient at pulling carbon out of our atmosphere.

          • Chocrates@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            And it isn’t just the plants. It is the centuries of plants that have lived and died to build the soil. Modern practices burn up the old plants (often, though no till and no burn practices to exist and are growing in popularity) making the soil consistently lose fertility. Also we cover them in pesticides and herbicides and monocrops.

            • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Fun fact: The guy in the “It’s not much but it’s honest work” meme was a pioneer in no-till agriculture, and helped to research methods and popularize the practice. He did tremendous work in helping to reduce runoff and save our soils.

              Honest work, indeed.

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Worldwide? Not necessarily, no. Most of the growth in beef demand in particular is in developing nations. Subsidies increase access, but they don’t create demand in and of themself

          • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            In my country meat is heavily subsided and if was put to market at true price less people would buy it.

            They don’t remove them because It would piss off a lot of business to remove the subsidies overnight and many would lose jobs. But I say fuck them, it’ll work out in the long run

          • baru@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Subsidies increase access, but they don’t create demand in and of themself

            If something is significantly lowered in price, wouldn’t that affect demand? If not, why would it suddenly work differently?

            You should also see how much of the EU budget directly goes to farming. That’s just direct subsidies, there’s also loads of indirect ones.

      • Chocrates@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes you are right, but we don’t live in a truly free market. There are all kinds of shenanigans that happen to make our decisions have less impact. Also advertising has to be accounted for. Corporations use neuroscience to convince us to do things against our best interest. How can we account for that?

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      The article literally says producers, consumers, and government are all part of it.

      We’ve gotten to the point that any mention of what an individual can do to reduce their carbon impact is met with “stop blaming us!”

      The reality is that we are all responsible and we all have to change, including individuals. You just don’t want to change, you want everyone else to. You are just like the rich person that says they care about global warming, as they turn around and jump on their private jet.

      • Chocrates@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I agree it is all connected.
        I guess my complaint is the degree at which we as individuals make an impact vs Corporations and the Government. I could go completely carbon neutral tomorrow. Sustainably farm in the woods and never leave, but that wouldn’t touch the 6 million tons of Methane leaked from Natural Gas infrastructure this year.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Pretty much everyone and everything can point to a bigger polluter. The reality is that we all have to change. If every time we are given ways to change, we instead whine that there are worse than us…well, then, we’re just fucked.