Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5212 readers

707 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

109

Australian red meat industry says it doesn’t need to meet its self-imposed net zero target (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11740609

Prof Mark Howden, the director of the Australian National University Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, said the sector’s net zero target is “effectively not possible”.

“It’s pretty well embedded in the public consciousness that red meat is high profile in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per serve,” Howden said.

“I suspect the industry saw this as a fundamental threat to their future … A few years ago everybody was kind of jumping on the net zero bandwagon without actually thinking through what it actually meant,” he said.

The CSIRO found the industry would fall short of meeting its net zero target, and instead recommended the adoption of a “climate-neutral” target that would require a reduction of methane emissions rather their complete elimination.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jadero@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 months ago

I didn't read that whole article, just what you linked and a bit further. I'm inclined to be suspicious of what is said based on this very badly researched section:

"Not everyone in the world can go vegan"

But you can. And that's the point. Anyone who's reading this has no excuse not to be vegan. Unless you're either a.) sitting on a sand dune in the middle of the Sahara Desert, or b.) sitting in an igloo somewhere in the North Pole, in which case I must say, I'm pretty impressed with your wi-fi signal.

Palming off one's own complicity in animal agriculture onto those living in barren wastelands shows a complete lack of ability to take responsibility for one's own actions. If you are reading this now, that means you have access to either a computer, laptop, tablet, or smartphone, which means you also have access to shops and so on.

Those "barren wastelands" were not seen as such to the peoples who lived there for millennia. It's really only those who adhere to the concept of full enclosure and maximum profit who see these regions as barren wastelands rather than productive, self-sustaining environments.

I don't know about other regions, but a great many of the shops in the far north of Canada get their stock once a year during the ice-free season and by air, both horrifically expensive undertakings compared to stocking the shelves of a local supermarket in a major city farther south.

It's true that there is little or nothing in the way of agriculture in the region, but that only means a carnivorous diet is literally the only affordable way to survive, internet or not.

I get that the real rant is logically only supportable in reference to large scale animal agriculture, but let's not pretend that it's possible to have an affordable, healthy, vegetarian diet without industrial plant agriculture and large scale transportation networks, possibly global in nature. Both come with a myriad of their own ethical and environmental problems.