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.
That’s complete bullshit as the article is based on complete bullshit.
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.
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.
This has already been debunked elsewhere in the comments
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.
If there were no buyers, there would be no producers. It is always on buyers.
And yet it’s easy to stop the production while it’s nearly impossible to stop the consumption.
Lol what?
It’s nearly impossible to remove people buying something while it’s very easy to stop a company from producing something.
Lol what? Do you even understand that a company only produces something because people are buying that thing?
You heard him, @[email protected], it’s been debunked somewhere 🤣
That article doesn’t back up your claim at all. It talks about an industry.
Also, GHG metrics by volume distort the picture when CO2, by volume, is like 25x less potent than methane
These companies are producing products you consume. What would really limit the emissions is reducing the human population to under 1B worldwide.
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.
