• Rimu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes. Sloppy choice of words on my part but this is a climate change topic, here.

    Chicken meat uses 4x less water than beef. I’m not disputing your point, just firming up the perspective for anyone lurking.

    chicken vs beef

    Clearly, vegetables are way way better. But in terms of what kind of behavior change people are willing to consider, cutting out beef is a way way easier sell than cutting out all meat.

    • itsprobablyfine@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I tell people to try going without beef temporarily. What often happens is in doing so they learn to cook a bit and cut it out (maybe not fully but mostly) long term. Then they go after pork, chicken, etc. You’re right that beef is the worst offender, but we want to be careful not to overemphasise and make it seem like its the only offender. I think a lot of it is setting a tone. I’m veg not vegan but pick vegan options when available. I think the more we can normalise ‘eat less meat’ the better as that’s pretty hard to argue with

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, if we’re looking at the graphs, beef really is the only “offender” (if you can call it that) and only in the current consumed amounts. If people ate a lot more chicken and less beef, the GHG effect from animals would be lower than the same number 500 years ago due to animal population culling and advancements in agricultural methane reduction.

        At that point, the term “negligible effect” becomes unreasonably harsh. Even with the worst claims against the effect of livestock on the environment (many of which we might not see eye to eye on), it’s simply objectively not an environmental issue if people are eating chicken and some pork as their staple proteins. You can call it an animal rights issue if you want. Considering chicken is almost objectively a correct and healthy food to eat, two thirds of the diet triforce (health, environment, animal rights) become non-issues.

        And the cool thing, even if I disagree with the outcomes it’s healthier for us to eat a bit less red meat as long as our meat protein intake stays reasonable from white meat and seafood.

    • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s the impact, if any, of any of these crops/livestock in non-water-short areas? Do other areas thousands of miles away cannibalize excess water if available to prevent draught, or are these numbers sometimes meaningless in the medium-term?