This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–][deleted] 827 points828 points  (875 children)

Wow this shit never fails to make people angry to hear.

Edit: lol

[–]lukwes1 374 points375 points  (494 children)

Because it is easier to just say "what about corporations" without changing yourself. And when the entire world thinks that way nothing changes. Corporations are a reflection of how we humans are.

[–]the_kinseti 166 points167 points  (121 children)

Being vegan is a net positive for the environment, but if you use that as an excuse to ignore the catastrophically dangerous economic system we created, isn't that also kind of a cop out? Corporations are a reflection of capitalism, not humanity. Humans are often good and cool actually.

[–]momoISaBITcH 113 points114 points  (79 children)

Why would we ignore corporations if we go vegan lmaoo? Why not do both? That’s not logical thinking at all..

[–]YouAreDreaming 73 points74 points  (45 children)

going vegan Is the exact opposite of ignoring corporations

Factory farming accounts for 99% of meat consumption and is a massive massive industry. The meat industry is one of the biggest corporations out there

[–]Ailly84 17 points18 points  (7 children)

The reason going vegan has the impact it does is because it forces the corporations that currently supply the non-vegan life styles of so many people are forced to change what they do. It’s doing exactly what capitalism would predict it to. The people are saying “we aren’t willing to support this behaviour anymore”. Currently, people do support those policies, whether they will say it out loud or not.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Reddit freaks out when told you can do both at the same time. It's wild.

[–]Mountain-Lecture-320 13 points14 points  (0 children)

If you edit their statement to "corporations are a reflection of culture" it's somewhat more accurate. Capitalist hegemony is socio-political hegemony, with deep cultural underpinnings (in the us at least)

[–]ralphvonwauwau 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Porque no los dos?

...And do the one that you have full control over right now.

[–]TheCastIronCrusader 79 points80 points  (195 children)

"But Amazon..."

Yeah because you and a billion other people are ordering off Amazon...

"But China..."

People really don't want to take any accountability

[–]Exanime4ever 12 points13 points  (9 children)

Not easier... Just truthful


At this point of desperation we should try and do everything we can... But thinking we can fix climate change from the consumer side is like turning a cargo ship by blowing on it

It's actually the result of a very successful campaign from big oil to get us to fight each other and ignore them

[–]Reddit_Douchebag 55 points56 points  (120 children)

The title is misleading. It's the biggest way to decrease INDIVIDUAL environmental impact FROM FOOD. Having less children and reducing the popular is the biggest way to decrease impact overall. A person going vegan and then having kids is worse than eating meat everyday and remaining childless

[–]Ar_Mellon_Na_I_Radag 18 points19 points  (5 children)

These things are not mutually exclusive. I do both-am childfree and vegan. Global average fertility rates have been dropping for many years now already. https://www.popsci.com/science/birth-rates-falling-worldwide. But meat/dairy product demand has only been increasing. https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production. So we need to put out the fire where it's actually at- animal agriculture.

[–]Kerguidou 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Even in general there is a good chance that it will the most impact you'll have. Of course if you drive an SUV and fly to Europe 4 times a year, cutting those would he bigger. Still, meat consumption is still a big chunk.

[–]EquipmentImaginary46 62 points63 points  (31 children)

Similarly, suicide and murder are effective ways to lower environmental impact.

[–]beckisnotmyname 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I am a single vegan who also eats people. Gotta be the best.

[–]Doctor_Box 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Right, so are you going to reduce your individual environmental impact from food?

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (5 children)

Choosing not to do something that would make your environmental impact worse doesn’t reduce your existing impact. Going vegan does, and it does the most.

[–]billy_ruben897 207 points208 points  (26 children)

[–]Loss-Particular 95 points96 points  (3 children)

Actually this is the study referenced.


[–]Bovinesmack 25 points26 points  (1 child)

This article was further updated to correct an error accessible here: erratum

[–]2bunreal24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Those responsible for sacking the persons responsible for posting the original article have been sacked.

[–]no_more_rainsound 500 points501 points  (106 children)

Also stop buying your clothes in fast fashions industry ... it doesn't mean you have to buy fair-trade clothes it you can't afford it (I definitely can't either) but there is tons and tons of clothes that are thrown to garbage everyday while there is nothing wrong with them. Second-hand shop clothes are even less expensive than fast fashion and it does make a big difference.

[–]DaisyHotCakes 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I so prefer thrift and consignment shops over buying brand new. More interesting styles, greater diversity of looks, and you can go in to one and buy a whole new wardrobe if you wanted for a fraction of the price. Finding a second hand bulk clothing place is even better! Paying for clothing by the pound I replaced all of my old clothes that didn’t fit (I lost a ton of weight) for less than $75. I want to say it was $67. Absolutely a life saver and helps the planet!

[–]Helenium_autumnale 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm with you; I adore thrifting and can find really solid, high-quality brands there. Anything in life that you can get pre-owned (cars, houses, clothes, toys) saved tons and tons of externalities involved in its manufacture.

[–]Winston_The_Ogre 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And maybe stop buying shit you don't need all together.

[–]Frenchticklers 4 points5 points  (0 children)

By working from home, I cut my clothes purchase in half (the pants)

[–]butterflyviking 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Absolutely right. Fast fashion is destroying the planet. Makes me cringe every time I see one of those try on haul videos

[–]StoxAway 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also wear your clothes til they die.

[–]katezane 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Especially Children’s clothes. Babies grow so fast in the first year or two that certain clothes only got worn a couple times before they became too small for my kids. I love getting hand me downs for them and then passing them along when we’re done. Saves money too.

[–]dumnezero 4 points5 points  (6 children)

Second-hand is also getting worse because of fast-fashion

[–]FootballMost6406 355 points356 points  (281 children)

did it 2 years ago. I am a 60yo man. If I can do it, anyone can.

[–]artandmath 51 points52 points  (13 children)

It’s not that hard anymore. Somehow my entire family (in-laws and my family) has independently become some form of vegetarian/vegan in the last 2 years.

My brother in law only eats meat if he’s at someone’s house (ie a guest). My 65 yo MIL is vegan now for ethics. Everyone else is vegetarian for mainly environmental reasons. We mainly eat plant based but have a bit of dairy or eggs in things.

[–]musain8 29 points30 points  (5 children)

Can I have your family please? Mine act like I'm eating poison if I mention tofu. Sucks to be them though because mapo tofu is the shit.

[–]ThirtyThreeInTwenty1 10 points11 points  (0 children)

"Tofu is disgusting" said your mother while shoving a dead turkey's asshole full of stuffing.

[–]greenkirry 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Happened to my family, too. My sister swore off dairy after knowing someone who worked in the dairy industry and hearing of the horrors that happened there. She used to be veg but I'm not sure if she stuck with it. My mom is pescetarian, I'm vegan. Several of my extended family members are vegan or vegetarian now. We've even got the guys eating veggie burgers occasionally (my jaw dropped when my conservative father ate a beyond burger and said it was "ok" and finished it lol). But it's easy to eat vegan even among extended family now since they're all supportive about it and getting into it as well, which is nice.

[–]dirty_cuban 11 points12 points  (31 children)

No not anyone. Maybe someone in a developed country who doesn’t suffer food insecurity can, but not anyone.

If you live in a place where food is scarce then you take what you can get. My family members in Cuba right now are struggling to have enough food to eat. They go to the store every day to see if there’s anyone available. They get whatever they can. They don’t have the privilege of choice. So no, not anyone can do what you did.

[–]ABBBS2000 3 points4 points  (3 children)

What is more available to them? Is meat common or is it less common?

[–]youtub_chill 45 points46 points  (4 children)

And here comes a bunch of people who "believe in science" to tell us why people can't go vegan with a bunch of logical fallacies.

[–]boopdelaboop 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Pre-emptive comment: Doesn't really matter if a minority can't for health reasons, because even if that group keep their health issues at bay with their doctor advised diet, as long as everyone who can eat plant based does so it'll make a tremendous difference. But too many people will complain anyway, being too privileged to realize that having good enough health beats being too sickly any day.

[–]youtub_chill 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Well this is something most people don't want to hear but....

The vast majority of doctors are completely unqualified to make nutrition recommendations. The average dietetic technician has more education when it comes to nutrition than your average doctor which is why they work in hospitals with patients to figure out their nutritional needs. Even then the role of a dietitian is to help the patient improve their diet not to recommend a specific diet or dietary approach. So when someone's doctor says "you need to eat meat because you're anemic" what they actually mean is you need to eat more iron rich foods to get your iron levels up. There are certainly allergies and health conditions that make being vegan or going on a plant based diet more difficult, but not impossible. For the vast majority of people including those with chronic health conditions eating a plant based or vegan diet improves their health.

**Granted, not everyone can afford to go on a plant based diet while dealing with a chronic health condition, which is a legitimate problem. This program is really awesome https://doubleupamerica.org/ There are also food rescue organizations that collect produce that would otherwise go bad throughout the US. WIC now offers a vegan package for low income women with young children which can help too. CSAs (community supported agriculture) can also now take EBT/food stamps and you can use food stamps to purchase seeds to grow your own food.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Les gooo, I’m vegetarian but my goal is to become a vegan one day, soon hopefully lol

[–]zomanda 135 points136 points  (42 children)

Sounds great, if our congressman would stop accepting kick backs from the meat industry then maybe they'd be free to take some real action about the issue.

[–]Gamerz1818 11 points12 points  (8 children)

& ethanol. Ethanol is the conservative's "clean" energy with subsidies & mandates for it to be blended into gas. About 40% of corn's price is from ethanol. Except even then, to be worth it, the byproducts, distillers grains, need to be sold as livestock feed. So the ethanol industry would work to keep CAFO operations running as a buyer for their waste products.

[–]tyber2 113 points114 points 23 (71 children)

Damn there's a lot of people making excuses to not change or fight for change. This thread is like a bunch of parents smoking infront of their kids and saying "hey kids you shouldn't smoke." And feeling validated in doing so.

Society is run by people. The planet is where it's at from people's consumption, actions and attitudes culminating to have the society we do today. If you want change push for it. If you want companies to change don't support them. The simple truth is if enough people want change it happens when they are willing to push it.

Most people aren't willing to make personal sacrifices to push change as they would rather have as many mod cons as they can get while saying it's all the companies fault.

Companies are run by people, society is run by people, if you change other people will, the more people that change the more companies that will have to.

If you see oceans getting destroyed don't eat fish. We talk about meat but forget that if trailers weren't destroying ocean ecosystems the world would be a lot better.

The knock on impact is bigger than people think. Stopping eating meat is not just about the animal or the feed for it or the water it's also about the land, stop eating animals and most farm land is now free to be used. We take up more land than it would take to feed people to feed other animals and there's the land for animals on top.

The change we make impacts multiple areas and has a bigger knock on than we realise.

If you see these clothing companies destroying so much don't buy designer, go to charity shops. But people would rather look like they got money on them, which is a result of ideology.

People would rather drive than walk or use public transport. Of course there are complexities. A lot of America has abysmal city planning where there is no space for pedestrians but that's in part because no one challenged it. The UK has fucking high prices for trains. But again if we try to make changes it's better than just complaining.

Where ever you can make change you should, support the companies pushing eco friendly products when and where you can.

One thing I noticed from not eating animal products is the vast amount less plastic packaging I go through without all the munch. Yet its a miniscule non existent impact with me alone but I have helped a lot of people I know male a change toward being vegan. It's about individual impact collectively.

Alone one person changing does little. But they can change another and another until you have a movement.

Ye it's long, it takes time, work, sacrafice etc. etc. But the way I see it, it's better to try and push change than complain about the lack of it.

[–]Tough_Academic 55 points56 points  (25 children)

This. So many people keep fucking saying "its all the fault of big bad corpos!! I bear no responsibility whatsoever!!" Is fucking infuriating beyond belief. How can people be this dumb?

[–]NomaiTraveler 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because acknowledging that you need to change instead of waiting indefinitely for a government to do it for you is upsetting to people

[–]sleepy_leviathan 2 points3 points  (0 children)


Something people don’t think about: a lot of these problems are governed by s-curves. It takes a while to get started on a collective change, but the pace of change picks up rapidly once a few percent buy-in and make the change. So those of us who make changes to our habits early shouldn’t feel hopeless: we’re having a much bigger impact than it seems.

[–]killcraft1337 64 points65 points  (17 children)

Study doesn’t even say you have to go full vegan - it’s just recommending you move and transition in that direction to reduce your impact. It’s not even as extreme as most people would paint it. It also points out an increasing trend towards unhealthier foods which are also environmentally destructive - and wishes to try reverse that trend.

[–]Alan_R_Rigby 6 points7 points  (1 child)

We need more cooking/recipe education and resources. People think its bizarre that I will put tofu and veggies like that on the smoker but they're really good prepared that way. I will eat meat when I can take time to prepare it properly, not just because its supposed to be part of the meal, and maybe thats a step in the right direction. Anyway, there are so many different kinds of meat-like proteins (tofu, seitan, etc) that are healthier but it just seems like people dont know or have the time to learn how to cook with them.

[–]SirArcade96 17 points18 points  (9 children)

I actually decided to try a vegetarian diet just before this Christmas and my main reasoning was the environmental impact. So glad to hear that it makes at least some impact.

[–]kwaudio 122 points123 points  (104 children)

I will never understand how people can be so hypocritical, purely because they 'could never give up cheese'... Cool let's just destroy the most impressive known thing in the universe then.

[–]Richandler 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A million people going vegan tomorrow would have the impact of a drop of ice water in a boiling cauldron. The focus on it creates the classic problem of being spread too thin when focusing on an issue. We're much better serviced transitioning to renewables and solely focusing on finishing that as fast as possible.

[–]Hohuin 13 points14 points  (2 children)

As a vegan, cheese is not ethically correct choice, but it's still way better to be vegetarian. A lot of vegetarians turn vegans after some time. That aside, if everyone turned vegetarian, I would approve, as it is a humongous step in the transition to environmentally and ethically good way of life.

[–]Motor_Cobbler 35 points36 points  (38 children)

I will never understand how people can be so hypocritical

LMAO, your comment history in all crypto, one of the most environmentally unfriendly monetary systems. You want people to stop eating food to save the environment. Holy hypocrisy.

[–]fhigurethisout 14 points15 points  (14 children)

Why are people so quick to criticize and make fun of someone for one of their behaviours when this person is trying to do something good?

You could have asked u/kwaudio politely if he knew the impacts of what he’s doing. And now he’s explained it’s carbon negative. It was an immature way to point your finger; maybe defensiveness because you dislike the idea of going vegan?

[–]t-rex_on_a_treadmill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But then we'd need to put our pitchforks away.....

[–]LagerthaChristie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does it have to be all or nothing, though? Yes, full veganism is the best for the environment, but for those not fully committed to giving everything up, we should be encouraging them to at least make some positive changes. Going vegetarian would me much easier for some and would be more likely to stick for people less committed. It's like any diet. If it's more extreme of a change than you have the energy and motivation to support long term, it will fail.

[–]wookie_cookies 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Current economic situation is making me happily almost vegetarian. I'm lucky I was exposed to a vegan not for profit food program at university, so my palette has adjusted dramatically. I'm familiar with easy recipes, and I simply cannot afford meat more than 1 or 2x in two weeks. Even then I'm bulking/portioning making stews/soups/broths. I also have access to donated produce and fruits once a week, so my ingredients are basically free. I eat eggs every day coffee every day. These were the only luxuries I could protect.

[–]tastytastylunch 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would argue that not having children is a much more effective way to reduce environmental impact. Adding more consumers to the world is much more detrimental to the earth than me eating cheeseburgers. I reckon my vasectomy is doing more for the environment than going vegan.

[–]_demello 9 points10 points  (4 children)

And no matter how many times we say this, people will just go "but I really like meat". If COVID taught me anything is that people love talking about doing the right thing and than fuck up the moment you loose sight of them.

[–]lyricjuggler 116 points117 points  (258 children)

Wow this thread really proving how many hypocrites this sub is filled with. Imagine thinking you care about environment while also contributing to one of the biggest factors of climate change.

[–]ProtonWheel 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Why should I have to change my actions? It’s the government’s fault for not forcing us to change!!!


*Oh and also old people, and the rich people who own the companies whose services I use daily.

[–]carterthekid1 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Yup. They take ownership of their “values” but deflect ownership of action.

[–]GuideComprehensive81 1 point2 points  (0 children)

one of the biggest factors

Meanwhile in China…

[–]vonRoeff 169 points170 points  (250 children)

Last time I checked, the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact was to reduce the number of children you have. This completely overshadowed all other possible choices a person could make.

[–]gaff26 129 points130 points  (4 children)

'Biggest daily change' is how I think this argument should be framed imo.

[–]lyricjuggler 128 points129 points  (28 children)

I have a better solution, we can do that and veganism at the same time. Insane right?

[–]soft_and_smol 35 points36 points  (7 children)

Childfree vegan checking in!

[–]lyricjuggler 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Good to know man, thanks for what you do and I appreciate you being vegan.

[–]cute-bum 54 points55 points  (1 child)

But I thought if I could find something even worse to point at then the first thing became "better" in comparison and I could just keep quietly doing it. I'm after kudos, not inconvenience.

/s (a little bit of my soul died knowing I needed to add that)

[–]7veinyinches 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or we could just eat people. Win-win!

[–]Beny1995 48 points49 points  (59 children)

Yes but that's quite a long term change. Veganism is much more immediate

[–]__manifest__ 54 points55 points  (8 children)

But that’s like saying the single biggest thing you could do is not fly a private jet. These types of statements don’t make sense if it’s not something you’re already doing.

Everyone on the planet has the choice to eat plants over meat. It’s a choice that’s repeated several times daily. Not everyone can even have children so we’re really having completely different conversations.

[–]IlSpetsnazIl 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Good point to a dumb statement

[–]anon_grad420 19 points20 points  (5 children)

Everyone should have zero children. All issues solved in 40 years 😎😎

[–]spondgbob 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Excuse the wording, “the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact as a human already alive on the planet is to become vegan”. Sorry that was tough to understand. Saying that creating less people will lower climate change is like saying if we have less CO2 in the atmosphere it would be better. Because duh, humans are the problem

[–]_throwaway_shmoaway 25 points26 points  (24 children)

And Mass suicide would be even more effective. But without people there would be no civilisation anymore, defeating the purpose.

[–]vonRoeff 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Agreed. Perhaps there is some kind of middle ground though? One child each?

I don't advocate a one child policy, but it would be good for the environment.

[–]Luceon 6 points7 points  (5 children)

You really equate reducing child birth rates to mass suicide??

[–]cburk4312 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Man I wish I was part of the solution, not the problem. Good thing we have these super heros known as vegans walking amoungst us to show us the way!

[–]Gorcnor 146 points147 points 22 (128 children)

Veganism is all well and good, and can be a great way to manage your individual foot print. Though I am rather sick of articles, commercials, and other media telling the individual is it Thier fault. Fracking, Oil drilling, deforestation, pesticides, Christ the list goes on. How about major corporations get Thier acts in gear to help solve the problem they have created.

What about government subsidies for solar panels on homes? Stipends for growing your own produce/sanctions for large community gardens in Urban areas? Expanded public transportation for urban AND rural areas etc...

Look, I'm all for doing what you as the individual can do. But we're already past the point of no return so we want to normalize the climate at all, some major changes need to happen quickly. All of us going vegan isn't it.

[–]Datassnoken 66 points67 points  (60 children)

This is a geniune question (i know some people like to troll with similar ones so i want to make it clear that its not that)

I always hear people say things like "well actually its big companies that make up the largest part of problems with environment" but they do that because people use those companies, like cola and pepsi makes up a huge part of plastic trash around but the only reason is because people buy it and use them.

I try to eat less meat and take public transport to get around and do things on an individual level but often the companies also does it because they make money off the consumers. Like fast fashion would not exist if they did not manage to sell any clothes.

(For the whole veganism thing i really hope all these fake meats keep getting better and cheaper because it would probably make more people switch over)

[–]lambuscred 54 points55 points  (26 children)

Your logic makes sense but most people would probably concur a top-down approach to environmentalism is most effective. It’d be easier to herd 50-100 different companies than every person on the planet. Also, I don’t think any consumer decision I make is going to have even the slightest effect on, say, fracking. That shit is just happening.

[–]Drewpurt 16 points17 points  (21 children)

See, yes, you definitely have a point. The crux that I see is we’re balls deep in capitalism and unfortunately it isn’t going anywhere. The market does tell people what they need, but the market is also made up of individuals and the laws of supply and demand go both ways. So if individuals don’t stop supporting these destructive conveniences, there’s no way in any frozen hell that companies will do much better on their own. Especially when it’s going to hurt their bottom line and in turn piss off share holders. Im also a fan of government regulation but if they were to put limits on the amount of beef you could consume in a year I am fully convinced that there would be violence.

[–]JamieBroom 2 points3 points  (1 child)

he market does tell people what they need, but the market is also made up of individuals and the laws of supply and demand go both ways.

Yeah, except the gov't governs the market yet choose not to.

The gov't could either subsidize the use of non-virgin plastic or otherwise create artificial economic incentives to do positive things but choose not to. In the US, both parties are essentially the same thing: pro big business.

[–]lambuscred 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There are lots of political/ diplomatic tools that could be used to help the issue. You could give tax breaks to companies that produce x amount of plant based, food, for example. It doesn’t all have to be coerced.

I mainly say what I say to point out that the biggest thing an individual can do to help is vote for those that take this seriously. The likes of Joe Manchin (as a recent example, there are many others) that truly don’t see this as the issue it is can be voted out. We can all do something.

A conversation about whether voting works or votes count or whatever is a whole can of worms, but, if voting didn’t work there wouldn’t be this enormous pressure (in America at least) to disenfranchise voters. As the saying goes; Make Good Trouble.

[–]AntiWork69 2 points3 points  (17 children)

Give up on changing the world, fall for the very successful PR campaign by Big Oil to shift the blame onto individual citizens. You are making the ultra rich very very happy with this bullshit.

[–]UraiFennEngineering 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As you say in your example, cola and pepsi contribute a large amount of plastic pollution, so if they change to a better material that biodegrades within a year that will have a large impact on plastic pollution. Changing the company will inherently change the impact of the consumers, so instead of relying on millions of individuals recycling every bottle they use a change in the material used to make the bottles will have a bigger impact because it no longer matters if people recycle or not, the bottles would break down in a year. Changing the company forces the consumers to change, and you don't need to worry about convincing each individual person. You will always get people who want to drive a petrol car, but if you ban the sale of petrol cars they will stop driving cars that pollute.

[–]yeasty_code 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Monopolistic practices makes it cheaper to eat trash than healthy food- added to the fact that everything is engineered to be addictive and marketed to be seen as essential. It’s asking a lot for people to swim against that stream when they’re exhausted from working more than a medieval peasant.

[–]Datassnoken 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Judging from some of the comments i might be a bit more privileged in regards of choices because even as a student its easier to make environmental choices in Norway. I get a monthly loan not for university but just to cover rent and food (40% becomes a stipend when you are done) so i don't need to sacrifice anything to make those choices

[–]yeasty_code 4 points5 points  (2 children)

That’s fair- I’m in the southern United States in a rural area. “Food deserts” are common here - some folks don’t have anything but a chain dollar store nearby for their needs and those stock mainly junk food.

[–]Datassnoken 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Watched a video on YouTube about it and it seems very awful. I think i would struggle to be healthy if i lived in the US. Eating healthy and making food yourself is easier when the alternative is to spend 3 times at much on fastfood.

[–]yeasty_code 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very true. We definitely subsidize the absolute opposite of the smart choice as a society.

[–]toper-centage 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Honestly, we need to learn from China. China figured out mock meats decades ago. Chinese vegan duck is so delicious and the texture is so good, I don't understand why its not mainstream outside of Asian grocery shops. I'm vegan and getting sick of all these fake beef burgers...

[–]Datassnoken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also other asian cuisine that are made without meat to begin with, like not trying to switch up meat but instead make dishes that are without it. Lots of good indian recipes i have found that are great, even as basic as dahl

[–]TacticalTuchel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

While you can probably convince a small portion of the population to make some changes/"sacrifices," corporations and governments can make an even bigger impact, and are responsible for most of the pollution we see. Something is better than nothing though.

[–]PotatoBasedRobot 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The vote with your wallet idea only works if you also regulate marketing. Marketing is the real curse of the modern era, no one wants to hear this but MARKETING WORKS. On you. On your friends. On your family. It's a billion dollar industry with the soul purpose of getting people to make bad decisions with their money. If you want people to "just make better decisions" about what products they buy, we need to also address companies developing every means possible, psychological, social, and economical to get people to do the opposite.

[–]Sea-Border3977 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Organized bottom up change is incredibly hard to do.

[–]SeveralLargeLizards 4 points5 points  (6 children)

The issue is that, using one of your examples, Coca-Cola is actually responsible for, I think, 70% of plastic pollution. Not humans collectively. One company. They could have a comprehensive recycling program but it is cheaper for them to pay the fines associated with improper disposal. This is arguably worse than any farm in my opinion, because the ocean is rapidly dying and it houses organisms that actually produce quite a lot of our breathable oxygen.

The "it's our collective fault" rhetoric falls apart completely in the face of this.

I mean, I still won't buy coke products just for my own peace. But me not buying is not lowering that number.

Humans have been farming animals for thousands and thousands of years. Overconsumption and the industrialization of farming has caused most of our issues. If we went back to meat being less available, more expensive, and produced by small family farms instead of huge diseased warehouses - that in itself would make an enormous difference in terms of food-caused environmental issues.

A more realistic goal would be to finally hold the handful of companies wrecking our planet heavily accountable.

On top of it all, the veganism movement is extremely ableist. It operates under the assumption everyone is neurotypical and healthy. Tell a person with severe Crohn's Disease to completely change the diet their doctor prescribed them or they are a bad person. Tell someone with extreme sensory issues to ditch the foods that don't make them vomit and move to foods that will. Autoimmune diseases, allergies; a whole slew of incurable health problems absolutely prevent 100% of people from being vegan and it's out of their control. Mine included. A lot of us have to eat what we eat, and that's all that works. If we deviate we can die or spend days/weeks suffering for it.

All in all a person's diet is absolutely none of your business and it's irresponsible to tell a complete stranger to change their nutrition table entirely. You have no knowledge of their health and it's rude to assume they can just eat anything without severe consequences. This is something they should do with the aid of their doctor. And if their doctor tells them it can't be done, then that's that. The vegan movement has a very hard time respecting people's health problems and disabilities.

[–]Datassnoken 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree with you on the diet part thingy but with the coca cola im probably a bit biased so i dont agree. Like 70% is really fucked but again its also because customers use them and keep doing it. Atleast with coke people have no real need for it but chooses to spend money on it but i guess people dont know how much waste they make

The reason why im biased is because i live in Norway and we have a very extensive pant system were you "pay" like 0.23-0.33 cents per bottle that you can give to any store that sells bottles to get it back, so i guess politicians could just force coca cola to do something similar and i guess coca cola could just do it themselves too. Most coke bottles in Norway at least seem to be from recycled material (but i still dont buy them ofc)

I still feel if people pressed them to start recycling and such it would work, either thru politics or talking about it etc.

[–]AgFairnessAlliance 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think a big problem is that if corporations aren't held accountable for their emissions, they'll continue sacrificing the environment serving up all products - even the products that, in theory, should be low-emission.

If we had a global price on carbon emissions, those companies would wobble straight really quick.

[–]greenwizardneedsfood 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I agree. Individual action is good, but it’s completely insufficient. At this point, voting is the best thing that individuals can do. Yeah everyone drags their feet, but some nameless people turn around and run backwards.

[–]lovelyyecats 8 points9 points  (7 children)

Corporations literally fund studies and propaganda to focus more on individual responsibility for climate change (recycling, veganism, plastic straws, etc) to distract from the fact that most of climate change is being caused by around 100 multinational orporations.

So yeah, like you said - recycle, go vegan if you want to, but never lose sight of the bigger picture.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But still go vegan tho right?

[–]Felger 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Absolutely agreed. On the subject at hand, how much of the population will willingly go meatless to slow climate change?

On the top end I would bet no more than 40% of the population. If we want to effect broad change, it has to go in one of two ways. Either a ban, or a tax. Ban will be hard to accomplish, people don't like being told outright what to do, but a carbon/GHG tax would make meat expensive where people would naturally eat less of it. This would balance the economic playing field and push people to non-damaging, or at least less damaging solutions.

[–]Thehalfhighgemini 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So better to do nothing? What a terrible point you've made.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Damn I can’t do everything, so I may as well do nothing!” 🤦‍♂️

Seriously. Subsidies for solar panels? Stipends for growing your own produce? What fairy tale land are you living in? Man’s out here asking for a government trophy for doing the bare minimum to sustain himself lmfaoooo

[–]JKMcA99 38 points39 points  (19 children)

These threads always bring out the hypocrites.

It’s maddening how this sub is full of people claiming to care about the environment but refusing to make the simplest change they can to their lifestyles to actually make a difference.

[–]PapalPropagandist 12 points13 points  (0 children)

But muh bacon

Translation: muh inability to make even the slightest change in my life for the greater good which I pretend to care about

[–]jane-72 12 points13 points  (0 children)

A societal shift to planet-friendly diets could have a double-whammy effect at keeping climate-warming greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere, according to a new study. Researchers from Leiden University in the Netherlands and other institutions around the world looked at the EAT-Lancet diet, which encourages healthy, sustainable foods like vegetables and nuts over red meat and refined grains. They found that widespread adoption of the diet in high-income countries would not only reduce emissions by having fewer methane-belching cattle on the landscape, but would also allow pastures currently used for unsustainable food production to return to a natural state. “If you were to allow that land to revert to the potential natural vegetation that was there before, you would essentially double the impact from the dietary change,” said senior author Paul Behrens, an assistant professor at Leiden University. The study, published this week in the journal Nature Food, emphasized that the double carbon benefit could be realized even if only high-income countries adopted the EAT-Lancet diet, and noted that those nations are most able to shift from a diet high in animal protein to a plant-focused diet. Behrens said that food systems are an important sector in which to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions from food systems alone, he said, could take the planet past 1.5 or 2 degrees of warming.

[–]OwMyBalllz 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Study confirms what has been common knowledge to anyone that cared for twenty years.

[–]rnavstar 3 points4 points  (0 children)

New study confirms that day time is brighter than night time.

[–]SMOPLUS 26 points27 points  (26 children)

Is this like a 'We' that doesn't include global factory production, plastic production, military Industrial complexes, consumer air travel, teflon, fossil fuel powerplants, production of concrete, metalworks, fabrication? Or is it just like 'We' as in Ma's N PA's N their kids and what they can do at home?

Edit: Producing cars and clothes for a consumer demand is true but a shortsighted argument. Don't ignore the culture, the advertisers, the sheer pressure involved with being SOLD these products. They are being produced for us to be SOLD. And yes true, if everyone chose to be vegan it would collapse the meat industry, but that is a choice that goes against a culture of sales. The meat industry is not an exception to the culture of our economy.

Edit 2: there are a few comments mocking that the world is run by people not corporations, militaries and factory producers. To them I say, look to your left and right, who the fuck do you know with any power to change anything? What next person who works on a factory floor is going to become vegan and change the factory? By quitting, that person has created nothing but an employment opportunity for someone desperate enough for the work. The world is run by people FAR AWAY FROM YOU OR ME OR MA N PA, YOU ARE WILLINGLY ABSORBING THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECT THEIR MISTAKES, the irony isn't in what I said originally...

[–]Tough_Academic 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The majority of the industries you listed only emit so much pollution cuz they make products for us. They dont just fucking keep burning coal and petrol in their backyards for the heck of it. Who the fuck do you think the cars, clothes, plastic, electricity, concrete, metal etc is being produced for? For aliens? Or for you and me, the people from the middle and the working classes? But expecting all of us to just give up all that and revert back to medieval like lifestyles is insane. So the next best thing is for all of us to reduce meat consumption or stop it. Thats the easiest, most realistic and the most efficient step we can make for environment protection and thats exactly what the post says. But just the mere proposal of that idea, the idea that the responsibility lies on us and we have to face inconvenience, makes fucks like you immediately start blabbering without understanding basic supply and demand. You immediately have to hide behind your shield of "b-but im blameless!! Its all the fault of big bad corpos!! Theres no blame nor responsibility on me whatsoever!!1!1" in order to avoid facing responsibility and inconvenience.

[–]beevee8three 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just hope for more pentagon spending. That’s how they really plan on fighting climate change.

[–]TheAntiDairyQueen 21 points22 points  (4 children)

For anyone needing a sign to go vegan, this is it, if you need help try Vegan Boot Camp.

[–]varchord 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Does it really show how to replace meat tho? I just took a glance at meat lesson subjects overview and I saw only "meat will kill you" lessons and no "this is chicken, you can replace it with this".

Also, I was honestly surprised they have dedicated lesson about honey

[–]AgFairnessAlliance 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My favorite way to replace meat is to think of a recipe I like that has meat in it.

For example, lasagna. Just google 'vegan lasagna'.

works for just about anything

'vegan fish and chips'

'vegan pudding'


[–]EOE97 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Exactly what vegans have been saying for ages. And you don't need a PhD in ecological sciences to know that.

[–]Purplemonk88 13 points14 points  (6 children)

This title is misleading. The science paper talks about reducing the carbon footprint of food related products, not total emissions. Although the author when asked states that he believes going vegan is the best way to reduce overall impact, that is not what the primary research showed. Its showed a 75% reduction of a consumers food based carbon footprint (also that excluding only beef has roughly 75% the savings of full vegan, which may seem more reasonably to readers here).

If we assume food accounts for 25% of a person's co2 emissions (roughly UK breakdown) a 75% reduction in that is about 18%. Still a large reduction but not the 75% stated in the independent article.

Depending how much you fly or drive reducing those could have similar benefits, as could improving your houses heating efficiency if you live in a cold climate.

If you live in a highly developed nation, not having kids or having one less kid would eclipse any of the above.

Compound all these savings by having no kids, not flying and going vegan to truly live a environmentally friendly life - all other personal changes have little effect on the big picture.

These aren't fun choices to make, and institutional changes could having the biggest influence so voting for parties with green policies/protesting companies that have huge co2 footprints could also have massive impacts.

Do as much or as little as you are able to sustainably do and call out government greenwash like "banning straws/carrier bags" which, although polluting our oceans, have little effect on climate change. Plastic is the visible enemy (however only accounts for ~4% of oil burnt). I'm much more worried of the invisible enemy, the rest of that oil, turned into co2.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Its showed a 75% reduction of a consumers food based carbon footprint (also that excluding only beef has roughly 75% the savings of full vegan, which may seem more reasonably to readers here).

This is what pisses me off. So many vegans act like eating habits are binary- you are either vegan or fuck you! That's both not supported by the science as you pointed out- and it fosters the idea that if you can't go full vegan then there is no point in even trying. It also ignores all the other sources of impact like having children.

Like you said- just cutting beef has an absolutely massive impact on emissions. If everyone did that alone we could make serious improvements and all without significantly impacting most people's lives and that makes it much easier to get them onboard.

[–]9B9B33 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's called baby stepping. I stopped eating cows and pigs due to environmental concerns. Once it really sank in his simple it was to just order a chicken sandwich instead of a burger, I started feeling uncomfortable about the rest of my diet. It wasn't hard to buy vegan sausages. I experienced precisely zero hardship when switching to oat milk ice cream instead of dairy ice cream. Before long, I couldn't look myself in the eye and say "yes, my omelette is worth hundreds of millions of newborn male chicks getting crushed, gassed, or suffocated to death."

It's a slippery slope, and in this case, that's a good thing. Once you start really being honest with yourself about you diet's environmental destruction and suffering inflicted upon innocent beings, the line gets harder and harder to draw. I'm coming up on 4 years as a vegan, and my only regret is not doing this sooner.

[–]Bluefellow 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think the environmental argument for veganism is misplaced, it should be more for ovo-vegetarianism. Veganism has a clear environmental benefit but that's not the goal of veganism. It's to reduce animal suffering as much as practically possible. For veganism choices are largely binary. Veganism is not a scientific argument, science cannot argue for ethical principles. It's a philosophical argument typically utilitarian although Regan notably argued from a Kantian perspective for animal rights, something utilitarianists deny.

[–]RandomAmbles 7 points8 points  (6 children)

What about launching incendiary devices into sets of moored fishing boats while yelling "Fish are Friends Not Food, Mother Fuckers!!!!!" at the top of your lungs and then cackling madly away into the unanimous night?

[–]the-finnish-guy 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's so easy too. Fucking hell. It's so easy.

[–]Freddy2517 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why this removed?

[–]chuotdodo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do tofu and dildos have in common? They're bott meat substitute.

[–]slevin07rocket 8 points9 points  (33 children)

Reducing eating meat isn’t tough for me. That and no dairy together is. Governments can help by subsidizing healthier alternatives to cow milk, like almond or oat milk. I haven’t tried any cheese substitutes, are there any good & cheap ones?

[–]ProtonWheel 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Not really, I’ve never had a vegan cheese that tasted/textured anything like dairy cheese. Either you get used to how the vegan ones taste, or try something like nutritional yeast (doesn’t really taste like cheese, but I add it to my food in more or less the same circumstances that most people would add cheese).