[lcam84]

Is on this kind of measures where jevons paradox or the rebound effect kicks in. We will inclined to eat more meat because is more sustainable, and with that we neutralize the gains. Also meat from Brazil is many times dependent on Amazon deforestation, so although I love picanha, I will not eat it anymore. For those in Europe please press your government not to ratify the EU-Mercosul agreement that will increase the trade of soy meat and ethanol in exchange for Europe export more cars to America Latina. We should avoid meat and individual transports and try to invest in the local economy so this agreement doesn't make any sense

[pindab0ter]

I doubt this will cause people to eat more meat. I’m just guessing, but it has to be a very small group of people that limit the amount of meat they eat out of purely environmental reasons.

The group that’s limited by either cost or because they’re saturated has to be orders of magnitude larger. So I see this as an awesome bit of progress.

Please do correct me of my assumptions are wrong, though.

[pricecomstock]

I don't have any numbers or sources, but I'll chime in as someone who limits beef intake solely because of environmental reasons. I don't cut it out completely, I just stay mindful and only eat beef when it's meaningful. So trying something new and interesting, special occasions, or when I otherwise will really savor it. If I'm getting fast food or just eating to eat, I steer towards chicken, eggs, or vegetarian options.

[jonnycomputer]

Yet, but you are also probably the sort of person who would browse this article and conversation. No offense intended, but not representative of the general population.

[A_non_e-moose]

Picanha is just a particular cut. You can get it from any cow, regardless of region.

I get that most picanha-branded meat is advertised as originating from Brazil, but if you really want to contribute to protecting the Amazon forest, why not boycott the real source of the problem, Brazilian originating meat?

You can also go to your local butcher, and ask for a picanha cut of any local cow. That way you can still enjoy picanha, without worrying about the Amazon.

Maybe search for other names as well, in US it's apparently unknown: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picanha

"In the United States, the cut is little known and often named top sirloin cap, rump cover, rump cap, or culotte. Instead, North American butchers generally divide this cut into other cuts like the rump, the round, and the loin."

[usrusr]

Highly doubt it: vegans won't change their behavior and unrestricted meat eaters won't start eating even more meat. There's hardly anybody in between. Yes, theoretically less people might turn vegan afterwards, but how many vegans have become vegan because of methane?

[mistrial9]

a quick search shows that about ten percent of Europe are vegetarian, and about 375 million people world wide. Please note that "vegan" has a narrow, specific meaning; there are fewer vegans.

The definition of advertising is to change behavior, it is done daily for lots of reasons. Why not let people choose? Let's not prescribe outcomes, but instead enable evolution.

[usrusr]

375 million people world wide, and I'd expect not one of them to start eating meat because of some reduction of methane impact.

[tootie]

Decreasing methane emissions is great but it doesn't solve the land and water use problems. This will blunt the damage but cattle will likely remain a top contributor to climate change.

[afarrell]

Long-term changes in habits and culture take a long time — if they happen at all. The effect of this decision is that we can decrease the beef-related methane production by spending mere years changing mere hundreds of supply chains instead of spending spending fruitless decades trying decades to enforce new dietary habits on millions of defiant Texans or Pakistanis.

[it_citizen]

On the topic of rebound effect, it seems to me that for energy efficiency to work you need a carrot and stick are necessary. Help your country to become more energy efficient but as they do, tax externalities more severely.

[acchow]

This isn’t making beef cheaper in financial costs. There are a minuscule number of people limiting their beef consumption due to the carbon emissions.

[lern_too_spel]

This is more about getting ahead of carbon taxes than it is about changing people's eating behavior today.

[epistasis]

Jevon's paradox almost never applies to a subject matter. We have to stop using it to prevent making the world better.

[Izikiel43]

> not to ratify the EU-Mercosul agreement

I.e., let's keep poor people poor.