[dqv]

>And since people have limited capacity to make lifestyle changes, we need them to focus that capacity where it will do the most good. Meat just isn't it - transporation, housing, energy - those are where it belongs.

Diet is actually one of the easiest things for people to change. You have to eat every day. And there is evidence this personal choice has affected markets. Walmart wouldn't be selling more soy milk, selling tempeh, producing their own plant-based cheese if it was just a non-impactful minority changing their habits. Even if it takes a year to change, it helps people understand they can do things that do help the environment.

Everything you describe - transportation, housing, energy are all things that take often decades to reform. Giving people something they can do right now to make a collective impact (however small the impact) is worthwhile. It brings a certain kind of spirituality to the movement - even if I can't switch to an EV or the bus takes too long or I rent, so I can't do energy efficient changes, I can still eat food that reduces my impact on the environment. I can eat with people who share environmentalist feelings. We can come to collective conclusions, like deciding to take the bus to go downtown tomorrow instead of driving. We can share emotions about our worry, but also our optimism for the future. When it comes time to demand systemic changes, we already have a well-organized cohort to proselytize for those changes.

[dbingham]

Diet is also one of the most personal things to ask people to change, deeply tied in with their health, habits, cultures, and religion. If you ask them to do something that crosses some of those lines, you will have exactly the opposite effect you are claiming it will have. If you tell people that the most important thing they can do is adopt a diet that undercuts their health (many people cannot healthily maintain a vegan diet - including many, many vegan influencers) then you will demoralize them.

This push to tie the vegan diet to climate, it didn't come from the climate movement - it came from the animal rights movement. And it really exploded with Cowspiracy, which was a blatant propaganda film that badly abused the literature and has since been roundly debunked.

You still see some climate campaigners harping on this point, George Monboit being the most prominent to come to mind, but again, an honest accounting of the literature does not support their point -- that "going vegan is the easiest and highest impact choice an individual can make for their personal carbon reduction". It is not easy for most people and the impact of it is not nearly that clear cut.

The meme is a distraction that was imposed on the environmental movement by people who do not have the environment, or climate change mitigation, as their first priority.

I've been seeking a sustainable diet and agriculture for over a decade. Believe me when I tell you it is not simple or clear cut. There are a lot of things we should be pursuing in that area, but universal veganism is not one of them. (General meat reduction is, but that is not the same thing.)

[jshen]

No one is suggesting people become vegan. You keep constructing strawmen, and proposing things that will in fact dramatically increase the costs of meat and force the things you say you don’t want. It’s non-sensical.

“… while shifting to a vegetarian meal one day a week could save the equivalent of driving 1,160 miles.”

https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability...

[dbingham]

The root comment had "stop eating eggs, honey, and fish" before "take public transportation".

The comment above mine includes eating fake cheese.

Come on, it's pretty clear what they're driving at.

Also, nowhere have I said I don't want a reduction in meat consumption. In multiple comments I have said that it is a necessary part of the solution, whether by personal choice or driven by market forces as people shift to more sustainable agricultural solutions.

I am arguing against putting it front and center in the fight against climate change as the OP does and as the root comment on this thread does.

[jshen]

Below is the list you provided, and no where in it do you call for a reduction in meat consumption. You have some weird ax to grind, because telling people to not fly is a far bigger sacrifice than asking them to eat a plant based meal once a day instead of a meat based meal.

Here is you’re list.

“ 1. Walk or bike. 1a. If you can't do the above, use public transport. 1b. If you can't do that, consider moving to a city where you can do all of the above (if you can afford it). If you're rural, seek a land trust or farmer to buy your land when you do.

2. Insulate your house.

3. Get solar if you can afford it. 3a. Replace all gas appliances with electric (Heat pump, electric water heater, ec)

4. Don't fly.

5. Dietary changes, but remember to include ecosystem services and impact in your analysis. A little carbon is worth it if it means more land stays free of pesticides and continues to provide for the ecosystem.”

[rypskar]

>>Below is the list you provided, and no where in it do you call for a reduction in meat consumption

Reduction of meat consumption is part of 5. Dietary changes

[jshen]

That’s not clear. Dietary changes could mean a lot of different things. When you also consider the fact that he keeps going on and on about a niche low volume method of raising cattle, it would be easy for someone to think that he is not advocating for less meat consumption.