Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by chromas on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the beat-it,-don't-eat-it dept.

Phys.org:

Dr. Helen Harwatt, farmed animal law and policy fellow at Harvard Law School, advises that getting protein from plant sources instead of animal sources would drastically help in meeting climate targets and reduce the risk of overshooting temperature goals.

For the first time, Dr. Harwatt proposes a three-step strategy to gradually replace animal proteins with plant-sourced proteins, as part of the commitment to mitigate climate change. These are:

1) Acknowledging that current numbers of livestock are at their peak and will need to decline ('peak livestock').

2) Set targets to transition away from livestock products starting with foods linked with the highest greenhouse gas emissions such as beef, then cow's milk and pig meat ('worst-first' approach).

3) Assessing suitable replacement products against a range of criteria including greenhouse gas emission targets, land usage, and public health benefits ('best available food' approach).

Harwatt further elaborates that recent evidence shows, in comparison with the current food system, switching from animals to plants proteins, could potentially feed an additional 350 million people in the US alone.

You can eat plants or insects, but not meat.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:37AM (4 children)

    by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:37AM (#767209)

    What a weird argument. It sounds like you just don't want to but using excuses to justify it.

    No, I don't mind doing it. Especially if it really were to make a profound difference on the planet. What I mind, very very very very much, is that when our future is discussed it is ALWAYS the lower classes that suffer austerity measures first. The 1% are responsible for the bullshit in the first place, drove us to the brink of disaster, and they don't have to change? WTF!

    Fuck that. I'm not going to go through ANY austerity measures of any fucking kind, unless it is demonstrated to apply to the 1% as well. Meaning, if were are to get rid of pigs, then it is the same fine and penalty for the rich fucker caught with a few pigs on his property, as it is for the farmer, or the subsistence colony, etc. That goes for imports too. I want that rich fuckwad to spend 6 months in prison for smuggling in bacon. Even better, I want the law to more progressively punish you the richer you are. Like in Europe where a rich fuck can get a $100k speeding ticket that might be $43 for a factory worker. Same thing. I smuggle bacon, I can get penalized up to 5% of my net worth. Meaning, Jeff Bezos has a BLT, and it will cost him 5 billion dollars.

    Is this worldwide? Again, the rich fuckers can get on a private jet (more damage to the environment), fly to another country, and then have whatever they want. Heck, they could all flee to Dubai, where those laws explicitly don't apply to the rich and citizenry, but only to the imported workers/slaves.

    The swearing is never to sound cool. It's because I'm so fucking incensed by this Animal Farm Orwellian bullshit that the pigs on two legs are always so fucking special with the rules not applying to them. Why the sweet holy fuck would we agree to send the horse to the glue factory, and not also send one of the fucking pigs to the butcher?

    How do you know the 1% don't already eat less meat? Look at Gwyneth Paltrow's books and other rich people who follow these fads.

    How do you know the 1% don't eat more meat than the rest of us? Are you making claims about what 75 million people eat based off some books and fads? That's a complete assumption without anything supporting it, like facts. Whereas all I'm saying is that the 1% eat pretty much the same way we do. I understand the Mediterranean diet and all of that, but that is usually just higher quality food. It's whether or not you are eating the steak, or the hamburger that usually delineates the poor and the rich. They both still eat meat.

    If the 1% ate tonnes of meat and us all cut back, problem solved.

    While further entrenching the special entitlement that they all feel, that they're better and more deserving of us. That, and if they kept at it, while we all went through austerity measures, it should be pretty fucking clear to us which humans need kicking off the planet. Especially if you are making it out to be something that humanity really needs to do for itself.

    Our biggest problem is not the consumption of meat, but the 1% in of itself. They drove us to the brink of disaster, and won't even slow down. I would rather see us all die, then give them the satisfaction of watching 99% of the world suffer for their pleasure.

    Elon Musk started a car company that is accelerating human adoption of electric cars. That's a profound amount of carbon dioxide mitigated over the coming years. He's one of the evil 1%.

    Damn fucking straight that evil prick is one of the 1%. He's an anti-union bastard that can burn in the deepest levels of hell. Zero respect for that piece of shit that acts like he is a superstar saving the planet, while importing cheap Eastern European labor instead of employing local (union) work. None of what the fucker does is good for the middle class, or the poor. He's a rich fucker getting richer off our pain, and does not provide anything meaningful or constructive to society. He's a fucking parasite.

    You probably live in the US, which is effectively in the "1%" of rich nations. Per capita, you consume more meat than anyone else in the world. In fact, actual poor people can't always afford meat, and is eaten only on special occasions.

    But no, don't change.

    And? I don't know where you fucking live, but the divide between the poor and rich has become a fucking chasm where you cannot even see the other side. It's not people eating more meat than others, but the quality of the food itself. Poor don't get a lot of real meat here either, and shit food for the poor isn't exactly full to the brim with vegetables either. As far as the special occasions, that is a sea change shift in American culture. It became easier and cheaper to get the meat, so we ate it more. Back in the 50's when women planned out meals for the family, you were correct. Meat was eaten once or twice per week, and you had a fish day, and a veggie day, etc. Nobody eats like that anymore, poor or rich.

    Yes, I refuse to change, because it is complete utter bullshit. The asymmetry is appalling, and I won't cooperate one iota.

    I'll make a real easy deal with you. I'll change the moment the 1% changes.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 28 2018, @02:01PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @02:01PM (#767298) Journal

    If they outlaw pigs, I will turn to eating guinea pigs. Mmmm, guinea pig bacon.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:54PM (2 children)

    by ChrisMaple (6964) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:54PM (#767438)

    You are an excellent illustration of the fact that jealousy is an ugly emotion.

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:14PM

      by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:14PM (#767457)

      Fucking bullshit and illogical, and a weak character attack.

      Does it sound like I don't eat steak enough? Or bacon? I was just about to head out for steak and eggs at a local diner. What would I be jealous about in this case? Being an entitled Elitist that gets to continue the same bad behavior, while everyone else works hard to make the planet better? I'm at a loss to see how I would be jealous that allegedly desperately needed austerity measures were being sidestepped by a special class of people. Do you think I want to be them? I wish to be one of the parasites, unaccountable, and separated from the consequences of my actions? Nope.

      No, you've mistaken intense anger at the inevitable asymmetrically applied austerity measures to correct problems originally caused by people that live as parasites to the rest of us. Not jealousy, fucking intense volcanic anger. If those austerity measures hit anyway, it wouldn't affect me either. I've got land outside of the USA, and I do come from a family of farmers. Raising a few farm animals isn't all that hard.

      It's injustice is what it is, and righteous anger against it is hardly jealousy. That's actually a little offensive, because you are stating that I wish to become the evil I rail against.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:09PM (#767556)

      You are an excellent illustration of someone who has a decent vocabulary but very poor reading skills.