[manux]

> Getting China to stop coal would be more effective than getting the USA to stop beef.

Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do". Both _must_ be done.

[Zababa]

> Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do".

I don't agree. We have limited time and energy to act. Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste, compared to using that time and energy to focus on a more important problem. I think focusing on moral imperatives instead of the most efficient actions is actually dangerous, as it's a denial of the reality we live in.

[sinemetu11]

> Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste

It's a problem. Most americans consume way more meat than what they could possibly need and they do it because they've heard they need lots of protein which could come from many other sources besides dead animals.

[Zababa]

Again, America is not the only country in the world and is not the country that I was talking about when I said "beef in countries where it's not a problem".

> Most americans consume way more meat than what they could possibly need and they do it because they've heard they need lots of protein

I doubt that's true. Meat has always been rich people's food, especially beef, and people like consuming like rich people.

> which could come from many other sources besides dead animals

Is the problem ecological or moral here? If the dead animals were more efficient than the other sources (which they sometimes are), would it still be a problem?

[sinemetu11]

In which cases are the animals more efficient?

Most americans are consuming 100+ grams of protein a day (its very likely all of that coming from meat - I don't know anyone who consumes a lot of beans).[1] Average person needs about .36 grams of protein per pound of body weight.[2]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/well/eat/how-much-protein...

[2] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-much-protein-do-you-...

[Zababa]

> In which cases are the animals more efficient?

When they are grazing on non-arable land and the alternative is to produce no food at all here.

About proteins, from the article you linked (the Harvard one):

> For a relatively active adult, a daily protein intake to meet the RDA would supply as little as 10% of his or her total daily calories. In comparison, the average American consumes around 16% of his or her daily calories in the form of protein, from both plant and animal sources.

> Based on the totality of the research presented at the summit, Rodriguez estimates that taking in up to twice the RDA of protein "is a safe and good range to aim for." This equates roughly to 15% to 25% of total daily calories, although it could be above or below this range depending on your age, sex, and activity level.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Americans are eating too much proteins, considering the article is not saying it, or even saying the opposite.

[sinemetu11]

Most americans would not meet suggested exercise levels for "relatively active" even if that was at the 30 min. per day level.

16% is 60% more than 10%. Most americans are consuming meat for at least 2 meals a day, possibly 3 for those who are eating sausage or bacon for breakfast.

The general point is that americans consume way more meat than what they actually need. This has been promoted heavily in the high protein diet fads recently. Educating people on what they actually need for a healthy diet would go a long way and cost a lot less than alternatives like lab-grown meat.