Certainly not absolving everyone of their own personal responsibility to the problem and generally all avenues should be encouraged.
But reality is convincing the entire population to sacrifice what they eat while ignoring 75% of the problem isnt helping and won’t win hearts and minds.
As I mentioned in other comment: what improves are world more RIGHT NOW? Trying to convince thousands to altruistically sacrifice what they fucking eat? Or better regulating the emissions of a single source that would outweigh them all?
Half of an America votes republican… whining about their dinner plate is useless compared to just regulating the emissions of a type of transportation used by a few billionaires. Why do
I never see articles about reducing the emissions of farms/ranches. Apparently there is nothing they can do. It’s clearly all my fault for eating…
Different actions aren’t separable in that way. Adopting one “green” behaviour will shift peoples attitudes to others and make wide top-level change easier to implement. “What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming” has a good discussion of this and there may be some more recent resources. This is especially true when both (all) changes are necessary. I can’t easily stop private jets but I can quite easily not choose the worst option for my diet (and also other things like avoiding discretionary flights). Seems really clear cut to me that we should be doing the bare minimum in our personal lives whilst we organise to make the worst offenders accountable.
I agree with you that regulation (of meat production) is vital to all this as well but that will mean costs going up which needs to have enough people on board and aware of the harms to facilitate. We need enough change in attitudes to facilitate the necessary changes in regulation and law (whilst also tackling the inequality, the powerful and structural economic system that promotes harmful behaviours for their benefit). .
Certainly not absolving everyone of their own personal responsibility to the problem and generally all avenues should be encouraged.
But reality is convincing the entire population to sacrifice what they eat while ignoring 75% of the problem isnt helping and won’t win hearts and minds.
As I mentioned in other comment: what improves are world more RIGHT NOW? Trying to convince thousands to altruistically sacrifice what they fucking eat? Or better regulating the emissions of a single source that would outweigh them all?
Half of an America votes republican… whining about their dinner plate is useless compared to just regulating the emissions of a type of transportation used by a few billionaires. Why do
I never see articles about reducing the emissions of farms/ranches. Apparently there is nothing they can do. It’s clearly all my fault for eating…
Different actions aren’t separable in that way. Adopting one “green” behaviour will shift peoples attitudes to others and make wide top-level change easier to implement. “What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming” has a good discussion of this and there may be some more recent resources. This is especially true when both (all) changes are necessary. I can’t easily stop private jets but I can quite easily not choose the worst option for my diet (and also other things like avoiding discretionary flights). Seems really clear cut to me that we should be doing the bare minimum in our personal lives whilst we organise to make the worst offenders accountable.
I agree with you that regulation (of meat production) is vital to all this as well but that will mean costs going up which needs to have enough people on board and aware of the harms to facilitate. We need enough change in attitudes to facilitate the necessary changes in regulation and law (whilst also tackling the inequality, the powerful and structural economic system that promotes harmful behaviours for their benefit). .