Plant-heavy ‘flexitarian’ diets could help limit global heating, study finds
Plant-heavy ‘flexitarian’ diets could help limit global heating, study finds
My partner and I are flexatarians, it's lovely. The only downside is that it's hard to not eat carb heavy, which is also an issue with vegetarianism and veganism. I feel like a spy among vegetarians.
I really don't eat a lot of meat. When I do it's usually chicken, sausage, or broth. The latter two are great for using bits of the animal that wouldn't normally be consumed alone.
I feel very grateful that I grew up in a non-veg household that still ate tofu. And now I am a tofu fiend.
However, eggs are still far less impactful than beef, so, protein options still exist, not to mention all the nuts and beans out there.
Also, what about vegetables? Though I admit these should be part of a diet no matter what your diet is, so doesn't really count.
It's not all carbs in non-meat land, is all I'm saying.
Power to you for whatever works for you though, no judgement.
I eat pretty much the same, except almost zero carbs because of diabetes. But I've been eating like this for decades because my stomach just can't handle most beef or pork at all (except the sausage) ... it sits like a rock in my gut and takes almost a full day to start feeling normal again.
That's the big problem for our family. My wife has dietary restrictions from having a duodenal switch and ending up super malabsorptive even among DS patients because of it.
So she has a tiny stomach capacity and only absorbs a percentage of any nutrients in what she eats. Non-meat proteins tend to play hell with her stomach. She's gotta be careful about what protein shakes she has for her breakfast.
You know what would really help? More so then cutting actual food intake?
How about halfing the number of golf courses? Stop using grass and let more natural plants for lawns, stop the use of private planes and also just kill or reduce the Cruise ship industry to a miniscule amount. Plus other shit rich people use that has a disproportionate huge carbon footprint. Find it funny that I never see the news --or rich, holier than thou morons-- pushing for this. Nah, they go after our food. Rich people do not care, they can eventually make beef the price of caviar per weight? Because fuck you and all of us. Why? Well they do not care. They can always pay. Easily.
For example: Bill Gates is the largest farm land owner in the USA now, he and his buddies and his rich clients will all get all the natural milk, beef, pork, chickens, lambs, veal they can eat. You? Eat lentils and maybe crickets or give his lab grown biomilq, to your kids or eat his lab meat, like a good and compliant serf. Don't think, just comply and consume. 'Cause I am sure he ain't touching the stuff himself or is his family. He is not going to be the long term guinea pig. I wouldn't either.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/03/13/biomilq-artificial-breast-milk
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-backed-lab-grown-195311408.html
Carbon footprint of food production in the USA is 9% of total. Beef is about 3% of total. So 9 for both beef and crops.
Just the cruise ship industry, for example, is about 3.3% of the world's total carbon footprint. Let's kill that. Also private jet use. They can fly Business class, if they are not hypocrites.
I couldn't help but think there's no way luxury cruise ships is 3% of global carbon emissions
Was this your source? https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/maritime-sustainability
It says "cruise ships and other maritime vessels" which isn't cleared up anywhere in the article. You have to remember that if this includes container ships it's fully expected, we all buy shit from across the world all the time.
This article says the shipping industry is 3%: https://sinay.ai/en/how-much-does-the-shipping-industry-contribute-to-global-co2-emissions/
So either greenmatch is intentionally rage baiting everyone or they both emit 3% each, sus.
I really hate misinformation. It's very easy to rally and hate on the rich but it would be very funny to me if that 3% you said to "get rid of" means you would have to completey change your consumer habits and not only just affect "the rich"
But yes regardless don't mistake my comment for defending luxury cruise ships.
I mean, we can do all of those things and reduce our meat intake. They're not mutually exclusive. How about we encourage people to do everything they can, rather than gate-keeping solutions?
Considering every 100 pounds you add to your vehicle you reduce fuel economy by 2%, I wonder how much less CO2 we'd produce if everyone got to a healthy BMI.
Eating meat is not your religion. Why do you feel so offended?
At least for me these articles are a bit annoying since it seems that businesses world wide give a shit about the consequences of their actions but news outlets decided to pin the issue on the consumer.
Don't get me wrong. I think consumers are at least partially in charge when it comes to decisions about their consuming behavior. And reducing the meat intake is something that is not too hard and can improve the health for some people. But propagating this as the solution to our climate problem and on top not looking into the effect of lower income on nutrition / eating behavior makes me angry. The article just briefly mentions that the government has no success in influencing the prices through taxes.
At least here in Germany meat is so unbelievably cheap that it's very understandable people got used to eating it on a daily base. And it's hard to change this without businesses like supermarkets supporting this with price changes (meat up vegetables down) and an increase in minimal income since environmentally friendly food is currently more expensive than "garbage food".
The type of golf course matters. Where I live, a lot of golf courses are public, packed with big trees, surrounded by bushland, act as a green space and native animal refuge among the suburbs, some of them protect wetlands, and are local government owned. While they do use up a lot of water, its still probably less tgan if it was all just paved with suburban housing and their shit lawns. And all the trees would be gone.
We need a total shift. All those things are things we should do too. It's no doubt that rich people produce more emissions.
But you're just trying to avoid shouldering any responsibility yourself for something were all responsible for.
This is something you can do, right now, to decrease your carbon footprint.
Btw, if you're living in the west with constant access to Internet, and got a free education...you almost certainly are one of those rich people.
Personal carbon credits would make it very easy to solve all of that.
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.
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.
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.
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
isn't it heavily subsidized? I appreciate that you're using a textbook definition of capitalism but that's not how anything actually works.
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?
Ya know what would also limit it: Actually stopping like the top 5 companies causing like 60% of all pollution.
Just stop doing carbon credits because it's a literal scam and just shut down any factory that pollutes more than an allowed amount until they get it under control.
These companies are producing products you consume. What would really limit the emissions is reducing the human population to under 1B worldwide.
This has already been debunked elsewhere in the comments
You heard him, @FluffyPotato@lemm.ee, it's been debunked somewhere 🤣
That seems to put the carbon produced on the buyer of a product, not the company that produced the item. It mentions electricity as one and its not like you choose how your electricity is generated. Others being land use and food production which again you can't control because large corporations do that, not individuals.
Is this actually news? Seems old to me, thanks OP though for bringing it up again.
The term flexitarian is new to me anyway. Happy this concept is getting more press anyway
it's pretty crazy that no one in this thread has mentioned that going vegan would have a larger impact.
Being vegan would have a much larger impact!
I am vegan and I would say that but it would result in a big circle jerk as always of "hurr durr bacon".
Of course.
But don't let perfection be the enemy of good.
Here's an idea, maybe the affluent and ultra rich can stop their decadent luxuries before us peasants give up the few pleasures in life left to us.
You mean eating meat?!
Me, I just like to rape, don't take that peasure from me. Go for billionaires first!
Maybe I’m being too pessimistic, but feels like this is yet another study to add to the mountain of evidence that people will ignore because they’ve deemed the taste of meat worth an impending global calamity. When will the average persons tipping point be? When oceanfront property is available in Tennessee?
When will the average persons tipping point be?
When its too expensive to buy meat. Its not like this is new either. Here's meat consumption over the last 100 years in the USA:
It tracks decently with the rise in GDP in the USA:
Individual people choosing to "do the right thing" is never going to work. It doesn't matter if any individual chooses the right food, or kind of car, anything else.
Blameing people for not cutting their meat intake, is misplaced.
The government needs to change the market by subsidizing "good" things and taxing "bad" things. That's the only way to change behavior at scale.
Ok but remember when Republicans made up that Biden was going to "outlaw burgers" with the Green New Deal? And how even the made up idea that the govt would stop subsidizing meat caused half the nation to flip their shit, while the other half went "no don't be silly, we would never ever touch your precious tendies."
Appealing to individuals is important because without shifting the public's perception of meat as it relates to climate change, the government will be too terrified to enact those kind of changes for fear of getting voted out by the angry, barbecue-loving mobs.
Until flexitarians, vegetarians, and vegans (I'm vegan btw, just need everyone to know that) become a sizable enough percentage of the voting population, these systemic changes are never going to even be considered by our leaders. So we should keep pressing the importance of these changes to collectively move ourselves closer to that tipping point.
The government needs to change the market by subsidizing “good” things and taxing “bad” things.
Or at least start by ceasing to fucking subsidize the bad things!
Capitalism is so funny like that. Everything has a price to everyone, you need to find a threshold (tax %) to tip the scale.
You're completely right because right now in UK meat has FAR MORE subsidies than vegetables and meat alternatives.
Most people alive today will be dead before anything affects them. My parents have that attitude to global warming so fly out on holiday 2-3 times a year.
This change needs to happen from the top to force everyone's hands, you can't rely on the goodness of individuals because we're all selfish fucks
You know what could also limit global heating? If the fucking wealthy stopped flying in their private jets and stopped cruising in their yachts and stopped buying their 3rd house. Focus on the solutions. Subsidize green energy, tax the oil companies, ban private jets, etc. You know, things that would have an actual impact.
Yep, sick of being told I'm the problem and should change my way of living when a single private flight dumps more CO2 into the air than my car puts out in half a year, not to mention the fuel usage.
A person in their private jet is selfish and inconsiderate. They believe they are entitled to it and thereby destroy our livelihoods. They should not fly privately just because they can. They should voluntarily stop, and if they don't, it must be prohibited.
A person who still eats meat is selfish and inconsiderate. They believe they are entitled to it and thereby destroy our livelihoods. They shouldn't do it just because they can. They should voluntarily stop, and if they don't, it must be prohibited.
The only thing that will really fix the issue is if we stop breeding like rabbits. It doesn’t matter if we reduce the ecological footprint of individuals if we keep growing the population.
I think we should do the extreme opposite of breeding like rabbits to the wealthy instead. Like the polar opposite of creating life.
You're wrong! Population growth is not an issue, it's our western lifestyle, like eating meat and flying in airplanes. Our planet can easily feed 10 billion people healthy food. But not if we don't quit meat.
Except there is a decline in population growth as numbers stop seeing family life as an option because of demographic transition. You do not remain able to reproduce your whole life and as new generations come up to the reproductive age they face a very different life to what it once was such as what the baby boomers were going through (hence the name). This is not meaning to pick at the boomers but to point out that the name was coined for a reason.
Does "flexitarian" mean "eat less meat", basically?
I refuse to click the link because I hate the guardian.
Yes.
The best thing you can do to limit global warming without political power is to not reproduce. The next best thing is to quit eating meat. The less meat you eat the better. And as a bonus it’s highly unlikely to be as much of a sacrifice as not having a wanted child.
The best thing you can do to limit global warming without political power is to not reproduce
This relies on some assumptions that I question. Each person doesn't contribute a fixed amount to emissions, and it's not even a bell curve distribution. The rich contribute orders of magnitude more to the problem than the poor. The top 1% contributes almost twice as much as the bottom 50%..
And with birth rates where they're at, at different levels of income/wealth, I'm thinking that plenty of childless people can contribute more to the problem than an entire bloodline of people who have huge families.
Iirc, there's a population of livestock that can be sustained without feed crop (instead living off of by-product and untillable pasture), and reducing it past that is less sustainable overall. So while it's true that we eat way too much meat, it's not a great idea to get rid of it entirely in the context of sustainability. There are other arguments regarding the ethics of the meat industry, but that goes beyond the scope of the discussion.
Global warming isn't from cow farts ffs. Container ships etc though
Exactly, in the last decade or so I went from pescetarian to vegetarian to vegan and for the last few years I have been "flexitarian". My own adoption of it is different to others in the sense that most of what I eat at home is still vegan but on average I probably have 1-2 vegetarian meals at home a week and I don't have many issues eating vegetarian (sometimes meat) outside of the house.
I still avoid a lot of meat, especially things like veal, but I find being "flexible" also helps talk to people about it. It is much less intimidating asking someone to try having 2 veggie meals a week than telling them they need to universally drop all animal products from their diet.
My spouse is vegetarian for health reasons, so there are always vegetarian options at mealtime.
I eat primarily vegetarian, but I don't go out there and say "I am vegetarian." I found it easier to go to restaurants and merely say "I am not eating meat today" if I need to order something odd.
I suppose that I have been a flexitarian for a while, then.
Man "carnivores" have vegetarian meals all the time. This internet discourse is worth less than used toilet paper.
Basically. We have a couple no meat meals per week and we have cut back the amount of meat per recipe as well. Not for the environment so much but we have just naturally drifted away from eating so much meat.
Or we could eat like 3 billionaires.
I don't think 3 billionaires emit in their combined lifetime as much as 100 BILLION farting chicken in a day.
i cut down my meat consumption to almost zero. maybe some beef pho on the weekend sometimes..... but i HATE the term flexitarian.... i refuse to call myself that...
Ehh, what you call yourself isn't important. The point is you're still eating a diet that's compatible with not fucking the environment
what you call yourself isn’t important.
yeah, i agree... that's why i hate labels.
diet that’s compatible with not fucking the environment
and for health, and for a bunch of other reasons... but we don't need another label for it.... my choice of food is simply my choice of food... it doesn't need to be categorized
I guess I'm essentially a flexitarian at this point, though I have never labelled myself as such. I tend to opt for non-meat options but am nowhere near vegan as I only learned after my daughter started dating one. What an incredible minefield it is! You have to sit around and analyze absolutely everything. Like can you believe pepsi is vegan but not diet pepsi?!? But diet coke is. I don't know about coke zero and am frankly afraid to ask…
Wait what did they put in the diet pepsi?
I think it’s a trade secret. Probably something like how Guinness used to use fish bladders as a filter
For me being flexible help ramp down my consumption of meat. Each day without was a win. These days it's very rare that I eat any meat. It's become boring compared to the fun of a meatless diet.
I guess I've been a flexitarian since 2016ish. I have a few vegetarian days a week for environmental reasons.
My first goal was to preferably have 2 meaty days a week and leave the rest meat free. After about three years I got to the point where I realised I hadn't eaten meat in a while. I simply forgot to.
Now I just eat meat when I visit friends and family, or to keep my iron levels in check. It's surprisingly doable.
Yeah if you're flexible (I get it now) you can totally get free meat on the regular. Plus my dad goes on Costco runs and just gives me spare meat. I haven't really had to buy any in a while and like you don't really notice when I don't have any for weeks. The real thing for me is the odd hotdog or whatever craving, that's when I actively seek it out.
I keep drifting back and forth between whole food plant based and vegetarian for about the past 13 years. I got no beef with meat eaters but I couldn't imagine putting that into my mouth and the process of masticating it. Although on St Patrick's Day looking at the corned beef sandwiches took me back in time for a brief moment.
I hate animals, that's why I'm a vegetarian.
Interesting to note that the study has been funded by the Rockefeller foundation. Eating less meat is one piece of the decarbonization puzzle but I feel that the language of this article and the study implies that we need to focus mostly on this and turn a blind eye to the other ways we're feeding into climate change.
You do realize the younger Rockefeller died like 70 years ago, right? That's not the discrediting factor you think it is.
Are we doing this again?
The are 100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions. States can test nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean; nah eat a salad for lunch.
And what do those companies produce? A lot of them make food. They don’t give a fuck as long as people keep eating insane amounts of meat.
But if it makes you feel better, abdicate your personal responsibility and point the finger. But no matter how you vote, it won’t save the world as long as meat production is going up. They don’t raise the cows if you don’t buy the beef
Ah yes concrete manufacturers, one of the largest producers of greenhouse gasses, are only doing it because of meat eaters. Fun fact, the number one producer of greenhouse gasses in France isn't an entire industry, there's a single concrete factory that outweighs every other greenhouse gas producing industry in the country.
States can test nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean
They generally can't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty
The Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), formally known as the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, prohibited all test detonations of nuclear weapons except for those conducted underground. It is also abbreviated as the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) and Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (NTBT), though the latter may also refer to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which succeeded the PTBT for ratifying parties.
Not everyone is a signatory -- China, France, and North Korea are notable exceptions.
But even if they could, how would that relate?
Global warming isn't a function of nuclear weapon testing.
Global warming isn’t a function of nuclear weapon testing.
This reminds me of something I learned in climatology. Those who did pioneering work studying ocean circulation which became instrumental later in formulating the general circulation models used today discovered they could measure the currents by tracking radioisotopes from open air nuclear tests done back in the 60s. So ironically, nuclear weapons testing has furthered our understanding of climate and global warming.
100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.
But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids.
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.
I keep proposing the adoption of personal carbon credits, it would not be difficult to implement.
US Army: is biggest CO2 polluter in the world
Media: "You should eat more vegetables to save the planet"
Even funnier to me are vegans that argue with people about how animals are killed and how bad it is for environment to eat meat. While the military kills millions of innocent people for oil and burns a record amount of fossil fuels in the process.
Yeah, somehow I don't think we are focusing on the right problems.
Well, you can be against fossil wars AND against the exploitation of billions of sentient beings as well. I'm pretty sure most vegans are.
And while you can not stop the US army from murdering children in the middle East, you CAN actually stop paying for slaves to murder our fellow earthlings in an instant. And you'd immediately save two-thirds of land, water, and CO2 emissions by doing so.
who are these pro military vegans? are they in the room with us right now?
All this pussy shit about changing our entire eating schedule to reduce emissions by .01% is fucking dumb. The main problem is western habits and our dumb intake of everything! If the entirety of the US and EU disappeared overnight then emissions would drop by more than 75% even though the West doesn't even make up 10% of the world population.
All this pussy shit about attacking one of the worst emitting industries on the planet? Ig im a huge pussy because I love fighting climate change
ITT: peasants attacking each other instead of the people responsible for gestures broadly all of this
I don’t think peasants are tied to the land so that makes us all serfs which is even lower I believe. But yeah.