• usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s not just a matter of the number of people. The per capita consumption of meat is higher than it was decades ago

      • deft@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m just saying no matter what green initiatives we take won’t really help because there’s too many people. On no scale is feeding this increasing number of people going to be environmentally viable.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s far from true to say it won’t really help. Animal agriculture is substantially more inefficient than many realize

          Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14

          That’s not mentioning that the land use reduction has the potential truly massive portions of CO2. Even just reducing a bit is enough to potentially end up sequestering 14 years worth of agricultural emissions

          Our results show that such dietary change [reduction in animal production consumption] could reduce annual agricultural production emissions of high-income nations’ diets by 61% while sequestering as much as 98.3 (55.6–143.7) GtCO2 equivalent, equal to approximately 14 years of current global agricultural emissions until natural vegetation matures

          If we look at fully plant-based diets, we can reduce land and sequester enough to almost help us reach climate targets on its own

          Here we map the magnitude of this opportunity, finding that shifts in global food production to plant-based diets by 2050 could lead to sequestration of 332–547 GtCO2, equivalent to 99–163% of the CO2 emissions budget consistent with a 66% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 °C.

          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4

          Keep in mind these models are usually accounting for population (peaking around ~10 billion). Is population growth making emissions worse, sure, but these changes can still be large despite that

        • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Unfortunately, convincing people to have fewer children is likely to be significantly more challenging than convincing them to eat less beef.

          • deft@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Unfortunately you’re very right. Alternatively nature is very potent at equalizing. Let’s watch how that unfolds

            • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              It’s a shame, because it would do wonders for the environment if people just cut down on both: beef once a week instead of several times a day, and 1-2 kids instead of 3 or more. Both would be more special for being enjoyed in smaller quantities, too.