A single individual? Sure, but that is a bad comparison. World wide food production is responsible for over a third of all carbon emissions. That isn’t inconsequential.
But one person stopping eating meat compared to one company making a change. Heck one company adding solar panels to one office building is still probably going to make a bigger difference than one person going vegan.
Can you get companies to install solar panels? Few of us can, but (almost) anyone can go vegan. And even if you can influence corporations to reduce emissions, you can still go vegan! It’s not either/or
But the impact of convincing 7 billion people to change their eating habits will never be as high as convincing 500 CEOs to change the direction of their companies to use cheaper, green energy and reduce their energy usage. Plus they’d save money in the long term where as individuals will lose money. Seems like a much easier task to undertake for a government.
I’m not so sure which one would have larger impact, do you happen to have any info about that? Of course the best option would be if both of these happened.
What I’m trying to get to, is that just because our own impact is small, it isn’t a reason to do nothing. There is no need to feel existencial threat from eating a steak or flying, but it’s best to remember that every little thing helps.
There is also the social effect: the more people make climate conscious decisions, the easier it becomes for others to make those same decisions! We are scial creatures after all.
Also vegan diet is generally cheaper, as long as you don’t eat only things like fake meat. After all, lentils and beans are much cheaper than meat.
But changing society takes waiting a generation at least. We don’t have that kind of time. People are already dying.
And yes when produced in bulk, a vegan diet can be cheaper but the meat industry is powerful and gets lots of subsidies. Plus animal products are used in lots of products other than food, so all of the industries have to change and subsidies moved to realize that savings. Right now it’s definitely cheaper to buy animal products if you do a calorie to cost comparison which is what’s important to the majority of the world. It’s only wealthy places that are concerned with low calorie foods.
So again. What’s easier/faster. Educate the young, wait for the old to die off, slowly change the industries as demand changes… Or incentivize the companies, that produce by far the majority of greenhouse gasses, to stop doing it now with their money and power to make quick changes. I mean even Walmart has shifted significantly to green energy. And not because of public opinion, because they obviously don’t care about that, it’s because it saves money.
It’s not an all or none thing, either. You don’t need to sell your car and swear off animal products - even small changes help. Pick one place you normally drive to and try biking there or taking public transportation instead. Give up beef but keep eating chicken etc. You can make a difference without doing a total 180 - and you might even feel healthier for your trouble.
The point you seem to be missing is if they can’t sell as much meat they won’t produce as much. So the most the consumer can do is stop eating meat; when sales go down, production will have to follow.
Meat-eating has a heavy cultural component and industry follows culture, but the problem is that industry also tries to create culture to grow, it’s the way capitalism works. So as a consumer in the age of information you have to be hyper aware of your own personal culture, and see how much your actions are a result of your own convictions versus effective advertising and indoctrination from your environment, family, etc.
Ok, I think you’re not getting my point. One person cutting meat, will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases by x amount. This is the action a single person has on the earth. A fortune 500 company like let’s say Walmart, deciding to turn a single store to green energy is going to save a hell of a lot more. And that’s the decision of a single person.
So let’s instead of concentrating on convincing 7 billion people to stop eating meat, convince 500 people (CEOs of the fortune 500) to do their part to reduce energy usage or switch to green sources. Not only will it save the company money in the long term, but for the individual it will actually cost them money.
But no CEO wants to have a quarter of reduced profit building green, even if it leads to decades of increased profit. And that’s the main issue. Short term profit is all publicly traded companies care about.
I don’t think it has to be a choice and both actually need to happen. It sounds like you just want to continue eating meat despite everything you know.
Also the ethics of killing sentient creatures for the pleasure of taste aside, the problem is one, as you said of economy and scale of industry, which compounds both the natural effects and the cruelty, to not only the slaughtered but the slaughterer and the consumer too. What we’re both saying is the capitalist system is inherently shit for our environments, but I believe that killing animals for our pleasure is also bad for our psyches.
I’m saying what is the most efficient way to save the planet. If you convince 500 people to stop eating meat vs. convince 500 CEOs to reduce wasting energy and generating pollution. Which one is likely to be helpful? I can guarantee that convincing 500 people to stop eating meat isn’t going to have any impact on climate change at all. Even 500 million switching away from meat wouldn’t have the same impact as 500 CEOs. Concentrate on the things that are both impactful and possible.
With the economy so interconnected, they definitely help produce beef. But I would venture a guess that is a miniscule percentage of their overall greenhouse gas emissions, with a large number of them being power companies and the like.
Yeah 4 times 0.0000000000000000000000001% of what the largest companies produce.
A single individual? Sure, but that is a bad comparison. World wide food production is responsible for over a third of all carbon emissions. That isn’t inconsequential.
But one person stopping eating meat compared to one company making a change. Heck one company adding solar panels to one office building is still probably going to make a bigger difference than one person going vegan.
Can you get companies to install solar panels? Few of us can, but (almost) anyone can go vegan. And even if you can influence corporations to reduce emissions, you can still go vegan! It’s not either/or
But the impact of convincing 7 billion people to change their eating habits will never be as high as convincing 500 CEOs to change the direction of their companies to use cheaper, green energy and reduce their energy usage. Plus they’d save money in the long term where as individuals will lose money. Seems like a much easier task to undertake for a government.
I’m not so sure which one would have larger impact, do you happen to have any info about that? Of course the best option would be if both of these happened.
What I’m trying to get to, is that just because our own impact is small, it isn’t a reason to do nothing. There is no need to feel existencial threat from eating a steak or flying, but it’s best to remember that every little thing helps.
There is also the social effect: the more people make climate conscious decisions, the easier it becomes for others to make those same decisions! We are scial creatures after all.
Also vegan diet is generally cheaper, as long as you don’t eat only things like fake meat. After all, lentils and beans are much cheaper than meat.
But changing society takes waiting a generation at least. We don’t have that kind of time. People are already dying.
And yes when produced in bulk, a vegan diet can be cheaper but the meat industry is powerful and gets lots of subsidies. Plus animal products are used in lots of products other than food, so all of the industries have to change and subsidies moved to realize that savings. Right now it’s definitely cheaper to buy animal products if you do a calorie to cost comparison which is what’s important to the majority of the world. It’s only wealthy places that are concerned with low calorie foods.
So again. What’s easier/faster. Educate the young, wait for the old to die off, slowly change the industries as demand changes… Or incentivize the companies, that produce by far the majority of greenhouse gasses, to stop doing it now with their money and power to make quick changes. I mean even Walmart has shifted significantly to green energy. And not because of public opinion, because they obviously don’t care about that, it’s because it saves money.
It’s not an all or none thing, either. You don’t need to sell your car and swear off animal products - even small changes help. Pick one place you normally drive to and try biking there or taking public transportation instead. Give up beef but keep eating chicken etc. You can make a difference without doing a total 180 - and you might even feel healthier for your trouble.
Do any of those companies help to produce beef?
Most companies create products to sell to consumers.
But they all produce greenhouse gasses. And a single one of them produces way more than a person going vegan is going to save.
The point you seem to be missing is if they can’t sell as much meat they won’t produce as much. So the most the consumer can do is stop eating meat; when sales go down, production will have to follow.
Meat-eating has a heavy cultural component and industry follows culture, but the problem is that industry also tries to create culture to grow, it’s the way capitalism works. So as a consumer in the age of information you have to be hyper aware of your own personal culture, and see how much your actions are a result of your own convictions versus effective advertising and indoctrination from your environment, family, etc.
Ok, I think you’re not getting my point. One person cutting meat, will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases by x amount. This is the action a single person has on the earth. A fortune 500 company like let’s say Walmart, deciding to turn a single store to green energy is going to save a hell of a lot more. And that’s the decision of a single person.
So let’s instead of concentrating on convincing 7 billion people to stop eating meat, convince 500 people (CEOs of the fortune 500) to do their part to reduce energy usage or switch to green sources. Not only will it save the company money in the long term, but for the individual it will actually cost them money.
But no CEO wants to have a quarter of reduced profit building green, even if it leads to decades of increased profit. And that’s the main issue. Short term profit is all publicly traded companies care about.
I don’t think it has to be a choice and both actually need to happen. It sounds like you just want to continue eating meat despite everything you know.
Also the ethics of killing sentient creatures for the pleasure of taste aside, the problem is one, as you said of economy and scale of industry, which compounds both the natural effects and the cruelty, to not only the slaughtered but the slaughterer and the consumer too. What we’re both saying is the capitalist system is inherently shit for our environments, but I believe that killing animals for our pleasure is also bad for our psyches.
I’m saying what is the most efficient way to save the planet. If you convince 500 people to stop eating meat vs. convince 500 CEOs to reduce wasting energy and generating pollution. Which one is likely to be helpful? I can guarantee that convincing 500 people to stop eating meat isn’t going to have any impact on climate change at all. Even 500 million switching away from meat wouldn’t have the same impact as 500 CEOs. Concentrate on the things that are both impactful and possible.
With the economy so interconnected, they definitely help produce beef. But I would venture a guess that is a miniscule percentage of their overall greenhouse gas emissions, with a large number of them being power companies and the like.