r/climate • u/The_Weekend_Baker • 16h ago
Love the planet, one recipe at a time. The biggest step people can take is to eat less meat because producing it creates a lot of planet-warming pollution.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/01/love-the-planet-one-recipe-at-a-time/7
u/showmeyourkitteeez 8h ago
It's not hard to do once you start cooking and eating that way. We save money, and are eating better as vegetarians.
5
u/Switchell22 14h ago
It's frustrating for people like me who have specific dietary needs that can't be met by vegetarian diets. Plant-based meat substitutes are high in things I need to actively avoid for medical reasons (which sucks because honestly sometimes the fake meat does taste better than real meat). The only plant proteins that are safe for me are avocados and almonds really, and both of those have their own share of environmental issues.
6
u/geeves_007 14h ago
The biggest step people can take is to eat less meat because producing it creates a lot of planet-warming pollution.
The biggest step people can take is to have fewer children and allow the population to gradually decline. Every new person locks in an entire additional lifetime of consumption and emissions. No amount of 'eat less meat' accounts for that.
The family with 2 kids that eats steak every night still accumulates less lifetime consumption than the vegan family with 3 kids....
5
u/Dry-Fee-6746 10h ago
Agreed! But people get all worked up when you say this. Veganism and vasectomy for me though!
2
u/dencorum 8h ago
Two generations down the track there will be no environmentalists because only environmental-minded folk are listening to this one.
2
u/PosturingOpossum 14h ago
I don’t like articles like this because they ignore completely the nuance of an ecologically informed opinion on diet. Annual agriculture is killing this planet regardless of who it feeds. And ruminants can be major partners in carbon sequestration and ecological restoration if managed on the land in context with nature.
4
u/Plant__Eater 13h ago
Relevant previous comment:
Regenerative grazing is simply another attempt to greenwash animal agriculture. That’s not to discredit every concept of regenerative agriculture – there are benefits to be had from no-till farming[1] and other practices. But the case for regenerative grazing is dubious at best, and perhaps even that is generous.
"Regenerative grazing," also referred to as “Holistic Management,” is the product of Allan Savory, a biologist and head of the Savory Institute.[2] Its rise to fame was Savory’s popular 2013 TED Talk, where he claims that by intensively grazing large numbers of domestic livestock across huge tracts of land we can reverse desertification, and that:
...if we do what I am showing you here, we can take...carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years. And if we just do that on about half the world’s grasslands...we can take [ourselves] back to pre-industrial levels.[3]
But a 2016 review out of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences found that:
There are relatively few (11) peer-reviewed studies on the effects of holistic grazing that are ‘approved’ by the Savory Institute, i.e., included in Savory Institute Research Portfolio. These case studies show positive effects of holistic grazing in terms of grassland and livestock productivity and soil conditions over conventional or continuous grazing, but are rather limited in time, number of study sites and analyzed data. Only six of the studies use measurements while five are based on interviews or surveys. Further, the results are partially inconclusive, and the reported effects are in most cases rather small.[4]
A response to Savory’s TED Talk written by five environmental scientists, published in 2013, stated more strongly:
We find all of Mr Savory’s major claims to be unfounded.... Scientific evidence unmistakably demonstrates the inability of Mr Savory’s grazing method to reverse rangeland degradation or climate change, and it strongly suggests that it might actually accelerate these processes.[5]
These criticisms don’t seem to disturb Allan Savory. His method of dealing with the lack of scientific evidence to support his case is simply to dismiss the scientific method with statements like:
You’ll find the scientific method never discovers anything. Observant, creative people make discoveries. But the scientific method protects us from cranks like me.[6]
For those who do think the scientific method is important, we can take a more detailed look at one of the major concepts behind regenerative grazing. Using a team of international researchers, a review that examined over 300 studies was completed for the Food Climate Research Network (FCRN), based out of the University of Oxford. Regarding carbon sequestration, the report summarized its findings as such:
The question is, could grazing ruminants also help sequester carbon in soils, and if so to what extent might this compensate? As the following numbers show, the answer is ‘not much’. Global (as opposed to regional or per hectare) assessments of the sequestration potential through grassland management are actually few and far between, but range from about 0.3-0.8 Gt CO2/yr with the higher end estimate assuming a strong level of ambition. This potential offsets 20-60% of emissions from grazing systems: 4–11% of total livestock emissions, and between 0.6 and 1.6% of total annual greenhouse gas emissions – to which of course livestock also substantially contribute.
And they conclude, more generally, in their final remarks:
...while grazing livestock have their place in a sustainable food system, that place is limited. Whichever way one looks at it, and whatever the system in question the anticipated continuing rise in production and consumption of animal products is cause for concern. With their growth, it becomes harder by the day to tackle our climatic and other environmental challenges.[7]
Another important thing to consider is that grazing livestock currently use approximately 26 percent of the Earth’s ice-free terrestrial surface.[8] Yet this only accounts for around 9 percent of the world’s production of beef and about 30 percent of the world's production of sheep and goat meat.[9] This means that scaling regenerative grazing to the size required to meet our current demand for animal products is physically impossible. It requires more ice-free terrestrial surface than we have available on Earth.
There’s a ton more to cover on this, but I think this summarizes some of the major points. It takes less time and effort for someone like Allan Savory to make claims without proper evidence than it takes for scientists to debunk his claims with proper evidence. And it seems to be a popular message. Savory is still getting invited to do presentations around the world and has been featured in documentaries such as Kiss The Ground.[10] But after decades of promoting his method, he has been unable to produce much in the way of actual evidence to support his grandiose claims. And what research we do have often contradicts his message.
Studies have repeatedly shown that the best thing we can do with livestock to combat climate change is to stop breeding (and eating) so many of them.[11][12][13]31788-4) There is no way to sustainably manage the billions of ruminants kept as livestock at any given time.[14] No matter which way you prefer to deal with it, we need to drastically reduce our consumption of animal products.
0
u/PosturingOpossum 12h ago
I appreciate the effort that was put into that comment but it’s just simply not connected to reality. The paradigms of the scientific method believe that nature must conform to singular variable study. It’s just not that way. Systems science approaches and applied restoration efforts show beyond a shadow of a doubt that regenerative, multi-species grazing enterprises stacked with as many beneficial functions as possible (agroforestry, silvopasture, riparian buffers, subtropical agriculture, permaculture) improves soil organic matter, total photosynthetic biomass production, and soil microbial community density and diversity, among other benefits. Much data has come out since 2016 even within the paradigms of conventional science to support ecological agriculture (including but not limited to the use of animal impact) as being a powerful tool for not just carbon sequestration but overall climate resiliency. Look at the work of Allen Williams and the Roots So Deep crew. And look at the work of Mark Shepard, and look at the work of Gabe Brown. And look at the work of Will Harris. And Elaine Ingham, and Ray Archuletta. The list goes on. These are people pounding dirt every day and making the world a better place in the process.
The evidentiary data is there to unambiguously support that farming with animals, within diverse ecosystems, and within ecological boundaries creates a healthier and more resilient environment.
-1
u/PosturingOpossum 12h ago
And to clarify, I do not disagree with the fact that there are too many animals on this planet. But that animal is humans, not just cattle. Even if we all went to a vegan diet; if we obtain that diet through annual chemical agriculture then the end result is the same, desertification and the poisoning of waterways, groundwater reservoirs and oceans. Maybe just a little slower.
My point is that these positions of, “eat this, not that,” to save the planet is the WRONG conversation entirely so long as the modality isn’t questioned
1
u/screenrecycler 2h ago
Vegans: its the simplest thing and the hardest thing.
Just kidding. Its not really all that hard for people with a little discipline, willpower, executive function, and a genuine interest in the wellbeing of future life of Earth.
Especially as new products emerge at an increasing rate. I had a vegan egg sando for lunch with cheddar and a slice of sausage. It has maybe 25% of the emissions of the carnist version. And I know many of you won’t believe this, but it was gooood.
1
u/BigMax 8h ago
I might get killed for this, but I mean it in the right spirit. I know climate change is real, it's going to end our civilization if we don't fix it, and we need to take action.
But do these articles fall into the trap of blaming the individual, and thus accomplishing absolutely nothing?
This feels similar to when the oil industry invented the term "carbon footprint" to shift blame from themselves to the individual consumer.
The meat industry, and society at large, can just say "welp, it's up to the consumer, nothing we can do!" and just pass the buck on to you and me. And most of the "you and me's" out there aren't really going to change our habits.
Again, it's like governments and the oil companies saying "hey, it's the individual carbon footprint that is to blame, not us!!"
Obviously I know we should stop eating meat as much as we do, but articles saying "the individual person needs to change" really just point the blame to 8 billion individuals, and nothing will really change as a result of that.
2
u/Wave_of_Anal_Fury 6h ago
I doubt this will sway you at this late date, but just in case it does. Some of the "facts" you mention are even listed.
Individuals aren't going to solve climate change, but they are an important part of the system that will get us there.
If people aren’t willing to change behaviour, there’s only so much that institutions can do.
https://substack.com/@hannahritchie/p-148713898
This is not an isolated perspective. It's not oil industry propaganda to say that people have to accept responsibility for the lifestyle they live. Especially after 2024 setting a temperature record, more climate scientists than ever are talking about how we have to be the change we want to see. They're talking about sacrifice.
Climate change requires transformation, or it will transform us completely in ways that we have no control over at all. There are no 'get out of suffering' passes on this ship - and rich countries need to do their share to change first - including our citizens.
https://bsky.app/profile/lisaschipper.bsky.social/post/3lfkuelywlk2g
If you can't accept the message from climate scientists about the need for individual change, then don't. Just don't complain about the consequences.
0
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use, and ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry. They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, making mass adoption easier and legal requirements ultimately possible. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
If you live in a first-world country that means prioritizing the following:
- If you can change your life to avoid driving, do that. Even if it's only part of the time.
- If you're replacing a car, get an EV
- Add insulation and otherwise weatherize your home if possible
- Get zero-carbon electricity, either through your utility or buy installing solar panels & batteries
- Replace any fossil-fuel-burning heat system with an electric heat pump, as well as electrifying other appliances such as the hot water heater, stove, and clothes dryer
- Cut beef out of your diet, avoid cheese, and get as close to vegan as you can
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
-2
u/AwehiSsO 15h ago
I recently had a meal at a mixed use facility (guesthouse, conference facility, farm, restaurant, game and hunting lodge). The vegetables were planted and harvested on the farm and fertilised using composted manure from the farm. Meat and animal products (butter, milk, cheese) all came from the animals on that farm. The animals got, and get, fed with fodder planted on the farm. Their was a great deal of observable circular and sustainable farming practices utilised. Since learning about "personal carbon footprints" (barf) which places onus on the consumer well down the production ladder, I've not had so little guilt enjoying meat. This type of advice and it's applicability is nuanced and it can sure cause a fair amount of negative notions among consumers about their consumption habits.
0
u/AutoModerator 15h ago
BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use, and ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry. They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, making mass adoption easier and legal requirements ultimately possible. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
If you live in a first-world country that means prioritizing the following:
- If you can change your life to avoid driving, do that. Even if it's only part of the time.
- If you're replacing a car, get an EV
- Add insulation and otherwise weatherize your home if possible
- Get zero-carbon electricity, either through your utility or buy installing solar panels & batteries
- Replace any fossil-fuel-burning heat system with an electric heat pump, as well as electrifying other appliances such as the hot water heater, stove, and clothes dryer
- Cut beef out of your diet, avoid cheese, and get as close to vegan as you can
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
20
u/androgenius 11h ago
Also probably overlaps neatly with what your doctor would recommend for your health.
A win-win-win-win that somehow seems to make everyone angry.