Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.
We need to stop eating beef. The fact that no one thinks that if they stop eating beef they won't have any effect is disturbing as fuck. If everyone stops eating beef then the industry will collapse.
The fact that I don't see this graph more often is annoying, I hate having to keep bringing this up, someone else share this for fucks sake please.
Seriously. Animal agriculture needs to end and not exist whether we live in a capitalist dystopia or communist utopia, for the environment and for the sake of all sentient beings
The fact that you and I got downvotes just speaks massive volumes. We might not make it as a species because we have so many individuals who think it doesn't matter either way. WE ALL PLAY A FUCKING ROLE, TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR DECISIONS IN YOUR LIFE TIME.
Also concerning how many tons of beef products I've tossed due to mold in food production. Large-scale manufacturing has so many holes we could fill if only it was profitable for the companies to do so.
If the people that exclusively eat meat just reduces to a few times a week would do wonders.
I only eat Chicken and meat substitutes like Beyond meat. The problem is that greenhouses also produce a worrying amount of carbon and ramping that up could have similar effects.
I think you misunderstood this graph. This is per kilogram of food product. It has nothing to do with scale, it's a ratio.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm saying that as we transition away from meat products into meat substitutes, actual greenhouses will start producing more carbon emissions and simply replace the beef industry rather than amend it entirely. The systems used to regulate greenhouses are unfortunately contributing to the problem they were meant to solve.
This comment confuses me. How do you reckon that growing plants produces more carbon than growing plants and feeding them to animals?
Growing them outside is a lot different than doing so in a temperature controlled and highly regulated environment. Air cooling, sun lamps, all that uses power and that demand goes to the grid, which is coal and oil fueled.
Right so grow them outside or don't power it with coal and oil
Sure, but how do you grow enough to last the winter without greenhouses? Do you only eat meat alternatives in the growing seasons? The problem with everyone being vegan is that we don't have an agricultural infrastructure to fully support plant based food to last the entire year without greenhouses. Winter, disease, sunlight, water, all these things have a carbon cost to obtain, use, or fight against.
How do you feed the animals in winter?
Livestock requires food too. However much you need to grow and store in the warm months to feed the animals in winter could feed 10 times as many humans instead, regardless of how you do that. Not feeding the plants we grow to animals would necessarily be more efficient.
I'm not saying greenhouses are worse I'm saying they aren't so much better than changing to plants only would be a significant enough change at scale. We need to address the core of power production, coal and oil.
Between beef and dairy herds, cows have about the same impact as everything else combined.
We coukd start by not replacing meat eating pet's when they pass,this fetisihization of pets is bizzare. The US uses more meat for pet dogs then all of the meat conumed in Germany as one example.
That aside, we could start with banning advertising, private jets, cruise ships, jet skis, flying, motocross bikes, private cars etc why ? Some poor dude being told to stop eating a burger isn't going to take anyone seriously if Gate's etal are still flying around in a private jet and folks are jetting around the world to see a Taylor Swift concert.
https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm
The burning of fossil fuels for electricity and heat accounts for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, totaling 31% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, followed by transportation at 15%, manufacturing at 12.4% and animal agriculture at 11%
I'm not nearly as worried about carbon dioxide as I am methane. Not eating beef is much easier than not burning fossil fuels.
Take a fricken win, geez.
Yes. Thank you. I won't starve, only my kids will. Whew, dodged that one.
I've said it once and I'll repeat it until I'm dead.
The only good green energy is nuclear and Cherenkov radiation is blue. Give me blue energy. We've advanced to the point it's not only a good idea it might be the best one we have.
Third- and fourth-gen nuclear and renewables.
With the ewaste produced by solar and wind I don't even think those are the answer for long term. Better than coal and oil sure, but I'm fully behind fission and high key hoping for fusion.
Fair. Addressing e-waste is a major issue. I wish we could just attach full-lifecycle recycling costs to the product price.
Its not really a win until life is sustainable.
Genuinely asking, is complacency the right word in this context?
Complacency and some kind of emotionally-driven denial.
It always makes me think of dogs growling of you get close to their food bowls.
Lithium and Cobalt are still primarily mined via slave labor.
Green energy is still blood-soaked colonialism.
Damn guess we have a choice between slavery and carbon emissions, with literally no other options
Thanks to our current economic system. At least slave labor is not a problem of the technology itself.
I mean, we're already headed for ecological disaster no matter what we do, so don't make the mistake of over-promising. It cannot be avoided, but negative impacts could be greatly reduced.
But-- if you stop deforestation, rapid growth and poor working conditions for low-paid labourers, the economy will slow and I might have to invest more of my personal time in farming, instead of enjoying my farming sim!
I agree. As a metaphor, we have to fix the foundation or the house is destined to collapse. Don't get me wrong, clean energy is an important step. I approve of people trying to help, even if that attempt may unfortunately be rooted in personal greed. The problem is people are using that help to obfuscate the root issues, which are hierarchy and capitalism. Ignorance isn't bliss. It's death.
I work in this field specifically hoping to power CO2 removal in a sustainable way.
We absolutely need to reduce consumption as a species though, as whether we power cargo ships with solar or planes with batteries, we are collectively demanding too much from our planet.
It's frankly amazing the system hasn't fully collapsed by now.
Downvoting for the 'tip us into ecological disaster'.
Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong but from what I understand clean energy will slow that disaster down, not tip us into it.
Hmm? The text says that a growth-obsessed economy will tip is into ecological disaster, which is true.
Clean energy is able to somewhat solve the problems of fossil fuel. However they do not solve other environmental problems like a massive crisis in soil depletion from industrial agriculture, over fishing, pesticides and many other things destroying biodiversity and so forth. The only way we can solve those is by using earths resources better. Since economic growth and resource consumption are linked, that means we have no chance of solving those problems, if we continue to grow our economy no matter what. That is also true for the climate crisis, but clean energy helps.
Seems fine to me. It says that it's the growth obsessed economy part that's doing the tipping. The word "still" is being used in its adveb sense to mean that the transition to green energy won't be enough to stop that tipping on its own.
"clean energy" . . . :)
this idea of "clean" electricity seems to makes people think they can use as much electricity as they like even when its marginally all generated with gas or coal..
Like a 30-50% "clean" grid can magically double in capacity to accomodate every cnts tesla charging and new heating loads without more fossil fuel gen.
"oh that doesn't matter it will be 100% renewable soon."
" oh what no, I didn't mean you can build a nuclear powerstation there, can't they build it in india or china or africa and ship the power to us?"
"no matter, we'll invent cold fusion soon"
The difference between average vs marginal generation is something that a lot of electricity proselytes want to handwave away in order to keep selling energy intensive lifestyle and aspirations.
Its much harder to sell people a modest life, or a lower energy inensity - or a lower population density.
You want high population density as it makes sharing resources easier. The per capita emissions of a Londoner are at 3.3t. However UK is at 6t.
Also some processes make sense to be moved to the grid, even when they increase electricity generation. EVs are lower emissions then a petrol engine, even with coal electricity.
Otherwise a decrease in consumption is key. However only to a level, where we can provide the basics for everybody. Right now that means we also need more green tech.
not globally
yes!
?
Sustainability is absolutely impossible to achieve through capitalism, even if you instantly murder most all of the population, because of the very nature of how it views growth. It sees accumulation as being over wisdom and health, when it even considers the latter to be growth at all. Population is the way it is because of capitalism. Worse yet, we as a species are forced to do unethical reduction through war/murder/whatever if nature doesn't take care of it for us, because of this "need" for constant accumulation. It's a bad system. Don't hate the player if you aren't going to hate the game.