[Gareth321]

Medicine, computers, and building materials for EVs and well insulated homes are also "horrible" for the environment. We gladly make that sacrifice because we're happy with the trade. I understand you aren't, and that's fine.

It should also be noted that not all dairy production is equal. New Zealand, for example, produces milk with a much lower carbon footprint (https://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/5794851/carbon-footprint-of-...). The formula isn't a secret. Grass fed cows produce less methane and CO2. There is also amazing research on reducing methane production by up to 98% by supplementing the diet of cows with seaweed (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-30/seaweed-a....).

The point being, advocating for abstention is rarely a winning strategy. Instead we should use technology and policy to improve our production methods. Then we can save the environment and continue to enjoy products we consider to be important to our lifestyles. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[namaria]

Human civilization is pretty horrible for the environment in it's current form. Trying to break it down vertically and pinpointing personal choices on it is an exercise in diversion. We need deep structural changes to how we source energy, how we solve logistics and how we manage labor. Arguing about diet choices or duration of showers is just a way to keep us from tackling what really matters.

[tcfhgj]

Diet choices are things that really matter, as you can see in the IPCC report summary

[namaria]

If most people were willing to change their diets overnight, maybe. Mathematically or statistically, irrelevant when you take into account real human beings. It's as disingenuous as saying "if everyone were nice, Earth would be paradise".

[BossingAround]

Soon enough, capitalism will force people to change their diets overnight. When 1lb of beef is $30, people will think twice what to eat for diner.

Now, whether it's carbon tax that'll force e.g. beef to go to its true cost, or climate change, that I don't know.

[namaria]

That doesn't sound much like a dietary 'choice' to me. I hope pricing can force the necessary changes in time. Honestly, I fully expect disaster levels sea level rise within my lifetime...

[myshpa]

> reducing methane production by up to 98%

The burps are not everything.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23738600/un-fao-meat-dair...

"many peer-reviewed studies, ... put livestock emissions at between 14.5 percent and 19.6 percent of the world’s total"

"... it doesn’t factor in the significant climate benefits we’d get if we freed up some of the land now dedicated to livestock farming and allowed forests to return, unlocking their potential as “carbon sinks” that absorb and sequester greenhouse gases from the air.

Scientists call this the opportunity cost of animal agriculture’s land use. Because animal farming takes up so much land — nearly 40 percent of the planet’s habitable land area — that opportunity cost is massive ...

"One study found that ending meat and dairy production could cancel out emissions from all other industries combined over the next 30 to 50 years."

> we can save the environment and continue to enjoy products we consider to be important to our lifestyles

No, we can't.

Without Changing Diets, Agriculture Alone Could Produce Enough Emissions to Surpass 1.5°C of Global Warming (2018)

https://www.wri.org/insights/without-changing-diets-agricult...

Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricultu...

IPCC: Slashing Emissions From Meat Crucial to Climate Action

https://sentientmedia.org/ipcc-report-food-system/

Why the food system is the next frontier in climate action

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/04/why-the-food-syst...

[News-Dog]

  'Cows Toilet Trained'