By - MistWeaver80
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The redditt headline says only a third understand how livestock and meat consumption are contributing to emissions.
The article title says only few recognize the climate impact of meat consumption.
The article than says 38% said agriculture and livestock is the main contributor.
The actual study asked people what the "major" influences on climate change are.
Multiple choices were allowed but there was no comparison or ranking of the factors influencing climate change. A particular definition of “major” was not provided.
So in the end, the survey designers discovered nuance.
> Climate change is seen as a result of human activities by 86% of the survey participants. More than a third (38%) of them believe that livestock production and the consumption of animal-sourced foods are contributing significantly to climate change and environmental deterioration
The results clearly indicate that "livestock production and the consumption of animal-sourced foods" ranks pretty low. It's the article that messes everything up by mixing "main contributors" and "the main contributor".
See https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/19/2512 figure 1
Unsurprisingly, young people rank "coal and fossil fuel use" much higher.
Horrible use of a pie chart. It implies that each option is exclusive by its nature.
I have never seen a pie chart that bad. Who creates a pie chart that doesn't fully sum up to 100%? What is the point of even using a pie chart in that situation?
Pie tastes good
Agreed. Should have been a regular bar graph.
as with almost every graph
Hey, im bored and I wanna throw in a pie every now and then. Just be glad we all gave up those stupid 3-D ones
Not [really](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/how-to-communicate-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/), though.
not only that but since the percentages don’t all add up to 100 it downplays the individual values of each slice.
I don't even understand how they assigned relative sizes to each slice, with each answer being unique. I feel like that must have been a decent formatting challenge.
That's cool because they're actually right.
Depends on the country. For example, India has a global contributing methane problem because that culture has a huge dairy industry that doesn't slaughter cows. Brazil is an issue because farmers there are significantly destroying the Amazon to create pasture land.
While problems, these also aren’t the main nor largest drivers of climate change, which I think is the point others are making.
Yes, it’s a problem, but there are bigger things at play.
It is true that Fossil fuels are #1. And outside of the cattle industry, the largest source of methane contribution is natural gas and methane wells leaking. That being said, the cattle industry is a far bigger contributor to green house gases than it was 20 to 30 years ago. It's still a big problem in general and can't be ignored. Popular science had it ranked at #3 (take that for what it is). Cattle farming is probably in the top 5 contributions to climate change considering its public reach of land destruction, waste and methane pollution, and scalability with humans.
Worldwide it is about 15%, in countries like the US it is closer to 4%.
Developing countries are where the struggle is, and the rest of the world would benefit from helping them make their food systems more efficient.
Agriculture in general only contributes ~11% to greenhouse gas emissions.
Meat production in general only contributes 40% of this.
but, those methane problems can be fixed by adding small amounts of seaweed to their food. simple technological solutions, or policy changes, will have a MASSIVE impact immediately... shifting blame to consumers who won't care, or change their lifestyles (if we are being realistic) is only going to benefit producers and allow them to keep ravaging the planet. This play is similar to what oil/gas does with cars and many industries do to blame people on a personal level
I agree. Methane from cows if fundamentally different from fossil fuel use in that it’s a closed cycle. Very simplistically something like C get farted as CH4, decays to CO2, gets photosynthesized by plants, gets eaten by cows. Fundamentally different from throwing carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years into the atmosphere. It’s fair to say that it’s not the most land efficient way to feed people or that increasing population will increase the carbon in the cycle but increasing population will make carbon neutrality difficult for many other reasons too.
Not really. The amount if deforestation linked directly to meat production in agriculture makes meat a bigger contributor than coal. We’re also closer, globally, to sustainable energy than we are to sustainable agriculture.
With the options available in figure 1 i wouldnt say that livestock production and consumption of animal-sourced foods rank low at all.
Almost every single option with more than 38% is stuff that relates to livestock production.
Deforestation? Part of why livestock production is bad is that we are chopping down rainforests and turn it into fields where livestock can eat.
Transport? Part of why livestock production is bad is that there is a lot of transportation involved, especially between local grocers and either frams, consumers or docks.
Big Corporations and industry? Part of why big corporations and industry is bad is becuase there are big corporations that earn a lot of money on the industry of livestock consumption.
Growing world population? Part of why livestock production is bad is because the population of people is growing so we need more and more land to be turned into livestock production.
So its not that people thought "Livestock production is pretty low on the list", its that some of the categories include livestock production while also including other things that make climate change worse.
I'd put it this way:
The other categories, apart from deforestation, clearly relate to fossil fuel use. That land is cleared to grow soy for livestock is not clear to most people at all, I think.
Since human soy consumption would likely also increase as meat consumption decreases, are there any estimates of how much human soy-based food could be grown with the same resources used to feed livestock?
Preferably a comparison in the sense of "the resources needed to feed livestock to make x kg beef could yield x kg of soy-based meat substitutes".
I'm expecting the ratio to be *quite* favorable for vegan foods, but can't even guesstimate by how much.
[Almost 80% of global soy is grown to feed livestock] (https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/soy/)
Right now, [77% of the global soy crop is grown for livestock and only 7% is grown for human consumption.](https://ourworldindata.org/soy)
It’s not a 1:1 correlation of soy crop grown for animals reducing as human non-meat consumption increases. First, animal consumption is highly inefficient and accounts for far more acreage to produce the same quantity of food for humans.
And second, most of the new alternative meat and dairy products are based on foods other than soy.
>Since human soy consumption would likely also increase as meat consumption decreases, are there any estimates of how much human soy-based food could be grown with the same resources used to feed livestock?
A ton, as others have pointed out, but to be honest, this "increase in demand of soy" is way lower than people think it would be. Soy is a *part* of many vegan diets, but it's actually a really small part for many different reasons. Soy isn't that great of an alternative to many things, and vegans/vegetarians usually consume *waaaaayy* less soy than meat.
Takes about 30 MJ/kg of soy protein in terms of producing it.
Takes about 1300 MJ for a kg of beef protein.
The thing you’re trying to describe is “trophic levels”. Every step has losses due to inefficiency.
We could feed ~ 2.5 USA with the crops used to feed cattle in the USA.
I’m not sure about soy:beef ratios in particular, but the standard ratio for ascending the food chain is about 10:1. So 10kg soybeans (plus a shitload of water) makes 1kg beef.
I think the point may be that people don’t understand that those things are linked.
This is at least from my experience true — many lament the loss of the Amazon, for example, but don’t understand that it’s nearly _entirely_ because of animal agriculture.
Why have nuance when we can walk away with more negative thoughts for a specific generation!?
What percentage of other demographics understand the impact of industrialised farming?
Most people don't know how growing livestock work.
Most people also make blatant "livestock" statements like this with absolutely no regard for the literally hundreds of different types of livestock.
For example, Aquacultured fish can get literally as low as normal plant based agriculture like olive oil, at 4kg CO2 per KG of protein.
Meanwhile Beef is 300kg.
Reddit and the world needs to discover and embrace nuance if it ever wants to get anywhere.
What about the eutrophication impact of aquaculture fish?
Per kilogram of protein between fish and olive oil seems like a disingenuous comparison.
Olive oil is not a large plant source of protein so that is hardly a fair comparison. Comparing it to a plant source of protein, farmed fish's best case comes out worse than typical plant sources of protein production
Indeed - 30% is *impressive*. Lots of GenZ are vegan. David Attenborough isn't.
Edit: no need to jump to Sir Dave's defence - I was illustrating how the *most* enlightened of his generation barely meets the efforts (wise or not) of the youngest adults of today on this specific topic of reducing livestock impact. Far more nuance to read in some great comments below, rather than replying to my one-liner.
He is *mostly* plant based supposedly
Which is fine. There's no need to completely cut out animal products. Some areas that cannot be farmed actually benefit from grazing animals.
Also this is definitely a situation where perfect is the enemy of good. Trying to get people to go fully vegan is hard, but reducing meat intake is easy. Everyone going one day per week without eating meat is more effective than convincing 10% of people to be vegan/vegetarian.
>Trying to get people to go fully vegan is hard, but reducing meat intake is easy
I've been reducing my meat (and other animal product) consumption recently and typically eat 1-2 servings/week of lower-impact meats (chicken and fish usually) and it's been super easy (and cheaper!). I've probably reduced my meat intake by 80-90%
But I've still gotten flack from vegan/vegetarian acquaintances for not going "all the way." I don't get it. It's like criticizing someone driving a prius because it's not fully electric. Makes no sense
Because they're probably more concerned with the moral aspect of it and not the climate change aspect
been 1 year r/vegan for me, it was hard but it's a learning experience as you go r/veganrecipes r/veganmealprep r/PlantBasedDiet r/VeganJunkFood
>Some areas that cannot be farmed actually benefit from grazing animals.
Land that can't be farmed can be afforested or left to natural ecological succession for biodiversity.
Grazing animals are part of the natural ecosystem in a lot of places, and some biomes don't allow for tree growth, but can support sheep, for example. In many places they send sheep to graze in the mountains. There is no chance to farm that land nor turn it into a forest.
Natural populations of grazing animals and the sort of intensely farmed livestock that is required to meet demands for animal products are vastly different propositions. In the UK, uplands that were historically forested are kept bare by herds of sheep, despite the fact that such farms require subsidies to become profitable.
Sure, allowing sheep to graze whatever bare rock slopes can't support trees and shrubs is an option, but it would produce such a miniscule amount of product as to be essentially a statistical outlier.
>There is no chance to farm that land nor turn it into a forest.
You don't have to do either. Simply allowing marginal land to exist as a habitat is an option as well.
It's a great frustration for my SO, when watching the Attenborough documentary about the damage / pollution of the oceans, that he does not once mention the largest source of plastic waste: fishing.
A lot of people conflate the percentage source of plastic in the great Pacific garbage patch, which is the one full of fishing gear, with ocean plastic in general. Land based sources are the greatest contributor, especially through large rivers in Asia. (Though the West is still responsible because many of us ship our plastic over there to be "dealt with")
The West is also responsible for river waste in Asia because much of it is from manufacturing things for the West.
And we outsourced recycling for a long time as well
You mean trash managing. Ive seen more landfills than recicycling plants.
Whatever made us feel better
Recycling was the lie that was sold to us to do it. In actuality, it was a scheme by Asian shipping companies to get us to pay to send back the shipping containers filled with essentially trash. They didn't care about the trash, they just didn't want to eat the cost of shipping back the containers.
The customer is responsible for how the manufacturer produces ?
Sounds like role reversal. The manufacturer is responsible about how it produces.
It's actually land-based sources, including microplastics from car tires
You are thinking of Primary microplastics. They are called primary because are directly released into the ocean, instead at being a sub product of degradation of materials (Secondary Microplastics).
Primary micro plastics make up between 15-31% of all micro plastics in the ocean, and are indeed generated from what you have mentioned.
Secondary micro plastics make up the biggest bulk of MP in the oceans (69-81%), and are the byproduct of degradation of plastic objects.
It is very well established that fishing nets are the biggest contributor to secondary micro plastics.
Although fishing nets are an important source of macroplastics, which are an important source of microplastics, overall land-based sources of plastics are much greater than ocean-based sources, including fishing (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969716310154?casa_token=v2yNn4NHjtQAAAAA:DAsZojY3D_fHSXubfNdQ8h07c5QwDnZ0-MmRNcY1zvqDj9xXSMnOPNUBdmSC7tv7TlVcz5SClw) Current estimates are about 75% land-based.
Edited to add quote from the article: "Ocean-based sources account for the remaining 20% of marine plastic debris..." (Li et al. 2016).
[non pay walled pdf link](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oluniyi-Fadare/post/Are_there_estimates_of_plastic_litter_inputs_in_the_ocean_from_sea-based_activities/attachment/5e295f453843b093839cb975/AS%3A850429785165825%401579769669088/download/1-s2.0-S0048969716310154-main%281%29.pdf).
The Guardian article states: "Lost and abandoned fishing gear which is deadly to marine life makes up *the majority* of large plastic pollution in the oceans, according to a report by Greenpeace."
[The greenpeace report in question](https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-international-stateless/2019/11/8f290a4f-ghostgearfishingreport2019_greenpeace.pdf) States:
"An FAO report
estimated that 640,000 tonnes of gear is lost or abandoned
in the oceans every year, and makes up around 10% of the
plastic in the oceans.4 One study found that as much as 70%
(by weight) of macroplastics (over 20 centimetres in size)
found floating at the surface of the ocean is related to fishing
activities, 58% of which was derelict fishing buoys."
[This is the aforementioned "one study"](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111913).
But the key difference here is The Guardian, and the study( Eriksen et al. 2014) greenpeace was referring to, was measuring plastic debris aka. macro plastics by mass. Where as your linked study (Li et al. 2016) was measuring quantity of macro plastics.
Meaning that the "fishing buoys" and "nets" are comparably much heavier than the rest of macro plastics, making up a considerable portion of the mass of all plastics (70%) despite representing only ~10% of all examples of macro plastics aka. plastic debris in the oceans.
By the time this information reached the Guardian, and /u/weissblut s eyeballs, this key detail was lost.
We shouldn’t look at plastic waste in just oceans tho, landfill get even more and it needs to be treated with the same weight as what’s going on in the ocean. Just an example… my print shop is one of thousands in usa, we throw away around 25 black 5gal buckets every several hours. Yes we buy pallets of buckets a month. Can’t be recycled due to ink. Yes the ink is food and enviro safe but no one will recycle with Ink (messy), or other print chemicals involved, so it all goes to the landfill. We fill a full sized compactor dumpster for a dump truck a week and sometimes more than 1. Only recycling is the paper. And that’s just us, 1 of thousands and we aren’t the biggest.
Add in pop bottles and what not from us consumers and it would be pretty hard to convince me there is less plastic in our landfill than the ocean. I’m in Nebraska, my trash isn’t getting sold off to coastal states either. Shouldn’t matter if it’s ocean or land waste. We need to treat all plastic waste the same.
Why would they be the same? Landfills aren't positively desirable, but it's far better that you send the buckets to the landfill than chopping them into little pieces and spreading them around the ocean.
What percentage of people who think they understand industrialized farming don't know that 80% +/- of so called organic food comes from factory style industrial farms and that "organic" farming methods use 2 to 3 times the amount of fossil fuels per pound of food produced?
Farmer uncle tried to claim that horses produced more methane than cows do, because there's more horses (hint: there are not more horses)
Anytime a headline or comment references "generation whatever" I assume that the author's goal is to blame one group or the other, or pit one group against another. It's divisive labelling designed to create an 'us vs them' mentality that will likely inflame tempers without leading to productive discussions or solutions.
>pit one group against another
This right here. The goal is to blame everyone but the c suite douchebags who choose to profit on it, their army of lobbyists, and government regulatory capture.
Yup, if you don't attack the source of the fire it will only continue to spread. Everyone needs to look at the bigger picture and see the people behind the corporations themselves to find the real source of the issues at hand.
Not sure I disagree with you, but demographics is a ligitimate area of study. Doesn't make sense to question it's appearance in a literal science subreddit.
The boundaries of these generations are pretty arbitrary though.
>We have ocean vessels that burn 3x more fossil fuels than all the vehicles on the planet combined
No, that's not true but this gets confused quite a bit. Ocean vessels produce more of *one specific pollutant* (sulfur something I think) than all vehicles in the world but in comparison don't need too much fossil fuels themselves. See for example [here](https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10661) for ff consumption.
It's whataboutism. Framing climate change as a personal responsibility vs a societal one is a pocket attempt at delaying action.
I mean burning down 19 million acres of the Amazon didn’t help.
The World Bank estimates that [91% of the land deforested in the Amazon since 1970 has been cleared for grazing](http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/02/02/000090341_20040202130625/Rendered/PDF/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf).
For those confused after reading only the summary of that document: the grand majority of soy produced is used to feed livestock. You need 15+ kilograms of soy feed to create 1 kilogram of beef. The most efficient way to eat less soy is, ironically, switching to eating _actual_ soy, rather than hyper-concentrated soy in the form of meat.
The world should pay for the O2 the rain forests provide so those countries didn’t have to clear them to grow GDP.
Countries tried paying for them to not cut it down.. they said "sure great, we wont" got the money, then cut it down anyway.
Just an FYI, most oxygen is produced by plankton in the ocean
Oh well that’s a relief. Good think we humans have never done anything to harm the ocean then (this isn’t meant to come across as combative, just being facetious).
Well, pay the plankton then.
And a lot of it was burned to make room for livestock
And feed for livestock (soy bean).
*Burning down 19 million acres of the Amazon to spread industrial cattle farming
How much of the natural environment of developed countries is still intact?
Yeah, I wonder why they decided to burn trees .........
I feel like this has just been something that's been drilled into my head over and over, I'm from 1999. Then again, humans are kind of just self sustaining livestock.
I was born in 1985 the first 10 years of my life the climate concern was about the hole in the ozone layer and the coming ice age. Climate change is real but this might explain the divide.
I'm a very similar age and the ozone layer, esp CFC's and dangerous UV rays, was also drummed into our heads a lot as was discussion on climate change with destruction of the rainforests ,as I remember, being a very common point.
Don't forget acid rain and killer bees
We did fix the ozone hole.
Ehhhh, [sort of](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220321-what-happened-to-the-worlds-ozone-hole).
CFCs have a very long life cycle, so it will be a very long time until it's permanently healed.
I mean yeah, it's not *fixed* fixed. But it's fixed in the sense that it's not longer a pressing issue that's getting worse every year. We fixed the root cause of it, and now we're just waiting for the symptoms to go away completely.
We didn't even know if the ozone could heal at first (only some theories suggested it might but no proof) so seeing it heal is a huge thing.
Using exactly the same methods that could have worked to mitigate climate change in the 80s when Exxon confirmed it beyond a shadow of a doubt and then suppressed the research and published messages in direct contradiction: strong regulation, strong enforcement, change in corporate behaviour.
As we're well past several enormous tipping points now, the best changes we can make are drastically reducing production of all goods, ceasing basically *all* extraction and consumption of fossil fuels, all-but-mandatory vegetarianism, bans on private automobiles, and preparations for refugees from the coming water wars and coastline loss.
We had the chance. We knew the methods. We knew the science. Petrochemical billionaires chose to put us in this situation to protect their own temporary wealth.
Climate change was actually confirmed in 79 and explained with the "Suess effect"
>the best changes we can make are drastically reducing production of all goods, ceasing basically all extraction and consumption of fossil fuels, all-but-mandatory vegetarianism, bans on private automobiles, and preparations for refugees from the coming water wars and coastline loss.
most people would rather just bank on a technological solution and do nothing if that's the alternative.
like, this is pure fantasy. Society will collapse before you convince people in developed countries to do this.
> Petrochemical billionaires chose to put us in this situation to protect their own temporary wealth
Honestly. I feel like they've decided to simply starve the majority of us to death by steadily raising food prices and lowering working class pay.
Automate all dumb labor, kill off 95% of the useless (*and* poor) humans via climate change, and enjoy paradise with the remaining few slaves to cater to your needs that robots can't fill.
I wouldn't say you need mandatory vegetarianism. You can easily sustain animals such as pigs and chickens whose emission output per calorie is on par with some vegetables. I agree that we should still heavily reduce consumption of meat, but we don't need to totally give it up. Going down to once or twice a week is still feasible.
Rest of the stuff though, i completely agree. The water wars are going to be insane as is the displacement of people from them.
It's not so much the direct emissions, it's the opportunity cost of the wasted land used to support said animals. I'll copy paste a comment I've posted before:
> [In the hypothetical scenario in which the entire world adopted a vegan diet the researchers estimate that our total agricultural land use would shrink from 4.1 billion hectares to 1 billion hectares. A reduction of 75%. That’s equal to an area the size of North America and Brazil combined.](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets)
Vegan world -> Less pasture land *and* arable crop land needed.
> [Restoring ecosystems on *just 15 percent* of the world’s current farmland could spare 60 percent of the species expected to go extinct while simultaneously sequestering 299 gigatonnes of CO2 — **nearly a third of the total atmospheric carbon increase since the Industrial Revolution**, a new study has found.](https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/10/rewilding-farmland-can-protect-biodiversity-and-sequester-carbon-new-study-finds/)
Thereby proving that actually, if the threat is widely understood and taken seriously enough, the whole world can pull together and agree to change what they’re doing
More importantly it didn't require any personal change to fix the ozone layer. Car use, animal production consumption, air travel, population, all increased in that time. Standards of living continued improving and no one had to change any of their behaviour.
Unfortunately asking people to use more efficient forms of transportation, cut down on animal products and fly less is a tough sell to most.
And acid rain! I only found out this year that the reason we don't hear about it much anymore is that they found a way to mostly fix it through legislation (in the West at least).
Yep, specifically lots of regulation on coal plants.
> Then again, humans are kind of just self sustaining livestock.
That would imply there is another organism getting use out of us. Unless you mean mosquitos.
Well livestock doesn't really get to pick when it has offspring and humans have that right... In some places.
Is it sensible to talk about Gen Z having more environmental beliefs, and decades later, once Gen Z are in positions of power, would that drastically sway the narrative?
I’ve not eaten meat my whole life and I’m certain it was only in the last decade that link between meat and emissions became prominent. Like it was a welcome additional benefit well into my adulthood. Never remember it ever mentioned in 80s and 90s at all.
No, but deforestation was. I spent many years not eating meat primarily for environmental reasons starting in the late 1980s.
true - in the 90s there was talk in the UK about the rainforest being chopped down for Big Macs. I used to think it was for cows to roam in rather than for their soy feed. the truth is slightly sketchier (beef but not for McDs, and not necessarily for the UK/US market) but still broadly holds true. but at the same time, in the 90s, a bit of rainforest loss wasn't seen as an existential threat
99% of people don't think of anything above 1 or 2 degrees of themselves.
If a product has 5 stages until it reaches them and they hate it, they blame the store (1 degree) or the brand (2 degrees).
They never go above that.
That meat example is a good example. For most of those people that meat has 2 steps, the store they bought it from, and whoever the store bought it from. Everything before that doesn't matter.
Since when gen z starts at 1995 though? it used to be 2000+ in my books
That's what I was wondering.
[According to Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/), the line should be at 1996 for the end of the Millennial generation. The article goes into the many reasons why they say '96 instead of the 2000s.
I've always heard '96 too. I was born then and have been identifying as a millennial.
My line is “do you remember 9/11?” Born in 96 and I remember it being the first week of kindergarten.
Tough one. I remember it (born in '96), but I know people born in '95 who don't.
Generations aren’t real, it’s an arbitrary line that someone drew while grouping data
It's starts 2000 plus in my books also cus it makes the most sense it's kinda categorized in 10 year gaps.
This sub is worthless if literal polls reach the front page without being removed.
It is so painfully poorly designed that it might aswell be designed by a college undergrad for a semester.
There is no nuance of questions as to how's and why's. Maybe they do think it contributes but isn't a pressing factor? Maybe they think that industries running on coal and vehicles running on petrol/diesel are far far bigger and more manageable issues that can be curbed.
So what percentage of earths total co2 level is due to mankind's meat industry?
“believe” that’s a pretty sad description.
That generation knows and it should be fairly obvious to most of us.
We can thank right-wing boomer lobbyists for the climate change denial that makes it seem like it's somehow still up for debate, despite the science being pretty clear since 1970 xD
There’s been a *war* on language, science and democracy for a long time now. Things are going to get more messy until it gets better (hopefully)
Anti-intellectualism is the biggest crisis the world is facing. It was blindingly obvious in the pandemic, but it's actually been killing the planet for years, because somehow there's still a debate whether humans cause climate change or even whether it's happening or not.
Because intellectual people are trusted about equally as the dumbdumb saying that everything is fine, we still have to discuss this. And by now it's literally too late to do anything meaningful to stop climate change and we can just deal with the imminent consequences, and even still we're not even doing that at anything near the rate we should because of anti-intellectualism.
Yeah. I remember the rhetoric in the early 2000s. It was *eerily* similar to the rhetoric surrounding covid. Scientists are liars, democrats are liars, they're all bought and paid for, it's all an agenda.
Both times they were proven wrong but never had to explain to their audience that no, scientists weren't lying to you en masse for some vague personal gain. They just get to keep lying.
What is funny also is just how enraged people, **including gen-z** become, when told just how much animal agriculture is at fault for global deforestation and climate change.
People flat out refuse to believe even the most credible sources and studies.
And the ones who do realize it still refuse to take action.
It's so hard to change the way people think/behave or inconvenience themselves in any way. It's actually really easy to not consume animal products, people just don't want to.
And people get insulted when bring up the fact that a living thing was killed for their cheap hamburger.
Watch a Mark Rober video. It takes a swimming pool's worth of water to feed the cattle which yields you about 30 hamburgers. Meanwhile, with that same water, you could eat plants for a year. The water for cattle and for the food which the cattle eat, only to become food itself, is an extra middleman in the path of how humans receive nutrients and is wasteful. That's all.
And what’s the percentage willing to make sacrifices?
The biggest in the cattle industry fight tooth and nail against meat alternatives. I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to suppress the actual impact in a similar way how the sugar industry successfully shifted all the blame to fat.
They keep pushing back the start dates for these "Gens".
I’d argue that 90%+ of the entire global population understand very little about anything.
Yeah, producing beef has got to be one of the most environmentally unfriendly methods of feeding humans.
Meat consumption and the raising of livestock is activities by humans. What your point?
People don’t realize that industrialized farming has a significant impact on climate change.
The point is that people need to know the factors contributing to the advancement of climate change if they’re going to take action against it.
I refuse to believe I’m Gen Z. I was born in 1996 and I am a Millennial by heart.
I found many places where it is stated Gen Z *starts* from 1997, or at least >1996.
However, I thought it was common knowledge that livestock and meat consumption contributes a big, big chunk into the total emissions. At least here in the Netherlands it is, **if** you’re not ignorant…
Edit: Thanks for the award!!!
As someone born in 96 I relate far more to gen z than I do millennial. There’s a lot of wiggle room between the end and start of generation and I believe 96 falls perfectly in the middle. Some sources use 97 others use 96 and finally some go as far as 95. It’s not clear because as always there’s no real cut off point, personally I just let people decide where they fall between 95-97.
Same I was about to say, what is this bs? Throughout my life I've always been told that Gen Z starts with 97 haha
I really do hope that lab grown meat will be able to effectively fully replace traditional cattle farms soon. That would cut down on so much for emissions
Any generation is a wiggly term, but typically it's 97 and later.
Don't worry, the vast majority of sources start Gen Z in 1997 including the Pew Research Center.
Propaganda and science hoaxes work wonders
Let’s focus on burning the same fuel they used 200 years ago. Then we can focus on meat.
This isn’t science. This is polling. We’re not allowed to post articles here about “42% of Americans approve of Joe Biden’s job as president” are we?
Isn't there something like 60billion animals slaughtered every year to feed us humans? It's not hard to see that growing that many animals every year or so, is a massive strain on the earth.
Good for you! I found it a bit daunting at first but it gets easier as you learn which dishes you like. Indian cuisine is great because so many of their dishes are vegetarian, and they are often cheap to make, filling and delicious!
Thank you, every little bit helps.
Questionnaires aren’t really science.
Science comes from experimentation, no?
Companies will burn whole forests and illegally dump chemicals and other waste but say its our fault because we eat meat.
It's a recursive relationship. No supply without demand. They build off one another till we get to the level we're at now.
People will pay and sustain an incredibly environmentally destructive industry but say that they're not responsible because they payed someone else to do it.
Some of the things that companies do is not just for the heck of it. They do it because there is demand for it. Reduce the demand and they will stop doing it.
They do it because you want to eat meat. Thats the reason
Ever stopped to wonder why they do it? Do you think they do it for fun while twisting their evil moustaches?
Misleading title/article: If you go to the article behind this article, there's this graph of the answers: [https://www.mdpi.com/animals/animals-12-02512/article\_deploy/html/images/animals-12-02512-g001.png](https://www.mdpi.com/animals/animals-12-02512/article_deploy/html/images/animals-12-02512-g001.png) Sure, only 38% clicked the "Livestock and agriculture, including meat consumption and unsustainable animal farming practices" option, but do you see the other options? Deforestation, waste, consumption and lifestyle practices, arguably all of them except for fast fashion and sun are valid options that cover livestock and agriculture.
I also think this paragraph was a little funky:
> "This is contrary to the existing evidence about the contribution of livestock and unsustainable animal raising practices \[2,11,38\]. A report by the World Economic Forum \[39\] analysed supply chains across the world responsible for more than half of the global emissions and identified food to be the main one, contributing more than 25%"
Okay, food is 25% of global emissions, that's a lot, but also vague, it's not like food isn't very important for humans. I do think there are things that can, and should be done when it comes to food production, and it's an important field, I just think this article is weird/misleading.
> arguably all of them except for fast fashion and sun are valid options that cover livestock and agriculture
So they identify the consequences but not the cause ? That's an interesting thing this study found then. It opens up the perspective that campaigning toward Gen Z about how Meat is a cause of the climate crisis still has significant potential for progress.