[bamboozled]

I have to say I agree with this sentiment somewhat, if there is anything we shouldn't change without a very good replacement, is good production.

Let's stop burning coal and worry about he rest later.

Note, I'm all for protecting forrests, reductionism etc, we should just stop making people guilty for eating food.

[valw]

A rational approach to climate change consists of accounting for GHG emissions where they are and cutting them where they are. Meat production and fossil energy are 2 large causes of GHG emissions, and so we must significantly reduce both. There's no debate to be had about this, it's just facts and numbers.

The point is not to make people for eating meat, just like it's not to make people guilty for lighting and heating their homes with coal-powered electricity. It's just to live sustainably. Let's not deny the facts because we don't like to hear them.

Is eating less beef a decrease in life comfort? Yes, it certainly is. It's still much, much better than living in a +2°C hotter world, in which getting any food at all will become challenging.

[dtech]

> A rational approach to climate change consists of accounting for GHG emissions where they are and cutting them where they are

The problem here is that would require an enormous international agreement. I do not see the political will for this in the largest polluters (US, China) and corruption would be a major problem in large parts of the world.

Doing this on anything less than a global scale would lead to unintended side effects where importing from country A get cheaper because A does not tax GHG emissions, just replacing the emissions.

You could theoretically fix this at the border with tarifs, but determining how much emissions a particular product caused becomes real hard real quick.

[AstralStorm]

Easy enough patch: require full (GHG, ecosystem impact) documentation of production process. This would also push some business in country as that's skip the tariff and make the documentation requirements easier.

Kinda like FCC for radios.

[dtech]

I repeat

> I do not see the political will for this in the largest polluters (US, China) and corruption would be a major problem in large parts of the world.

[raxxorrax]

Reductionism just doesn't work as long as constant growth is a requirement of our economic systems. It just doesn't go hand in hand. We will also never use less energy than we are using today, so we better improve energy production.

Doesn't mean we should skip engineering energy efficient devices. That is just an additional requirement.