[seu]

> At which point do you think humanity will start seriously thinking about radical solutions?

You mean, like, switching to a vegan diet, using public transport and stop flying? Those seem radical enough for most people in the Northern Hemisphere.

> Such as detonating thermonuclear weapons to throw enough dust above the troposphere to cool the planet down?

Weird world, one in which people can consider drastically changing the composition of the atmosphere, affecting all forms of life over the planet at the same time, instead of purchasing less from Amazon and doing some changes in their diet and holiday plans.

[jgilias]

Individual decisions like that are only good for making yourself feel good about doing something, but it’s close to meaningless when it comes to actually solving it.

It’s systemic solutions that are needed. Some of those may include disincentivizing consumption. But it’s also not simple given that in many places there’s serious pushback against that. And also the economic cost. Everything is interwoven.

I wish people stopped pretending that this is just a matter of going vegan.

[seu]

Systemic solutions are also needed. And switching to public transport or flying less doesn't happen without them, nowhere in my comment did I say that.

My point is about the fact that we already know and have most of the solutions: less consumption, less emissions, less destruction of our environment. Yet, most people with decision power (be it as individuals, as heads of governments or companies) refuse to accept and follow them. Instead, many prefer to propose global-scale, geo-modifications whose results are unknown and potentially more dangerous.

[uxcolumbo]

This study[0] and several other studies by UN, Oxford Uni etc disagree with you. The single best thing an individual can do is immensely reduce or completely avoid meat and dairy. Imagine millions and millions of people doing this, behavioural change will trigger system’s change.

It’s something we can do today, just need to decide whether having a burger is more important or not.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w

[anonzzzies]

> Imagine millions and millions of people doing this

But they won't. Even here on HN, where some smart people roam, touching their meat (like, eating LESS of it, not quitting altogether) will make them into incoherent angry (I guess) men. And that's of course a big step, smaller steps are even not a thing for many people; not flying, no car, hell, here people even refuse to obey the law of not topping up (or filling) their swimming pools even though there is an huge water shortage.

The only way will be if governments decide to step in. Problem there is; a lot of gov people and the people they support or who support them, are giving the wrong examples; big cars, slabs of meat, villas all over the place, bailing out struggling airlines, making sure the energy/oil companies can make more profits, making sure farmers have to obey nothing of these new rules because export products (so they can keep using whatever amount of water, cut ancient trees down just like that, ...) etc. People pick the govs they like, which means they hope either things will get better for themselves (not the world) or remain the same.

[fulafel]

Lots of people, also on HN, now follow climate friendly diets. In reality it is the meat eaters, not vegans, who are very loud and vocal about their diet.

But I agree we need much stronger regulation.

[uxcolumbo]

Yes true, but we have to keep trying to convince people in our circles. Otherwise we're effed.

I would have hoped that especially this HN crowd would change their mind because it's quite clear and logical that not consuming meat and dairy will mean requiring fewer resources and producing less pollution.

[layer8]

Human habits, preferences, and desires rarely submit to pure logic. Humans are more emotional than rational.

[candiodari]

It's not just that. If these products aren't used anymore, we'll substitute them to some other form of consumption.

If you want to have impact as an individual, study engineering/physics or indeed climate change ...

[surgical_fire]

A lot of people just don't care.

[myshpa]

> some smart people roam, touching their meat (like, eating LESS of it, not quitting altogether) will make them into incoherent angry (I guess) men

Not so smart then.

> The only way will be if governments decide to step in

That's why more people vegan == more pressure for governments not to ignore the issue.

[WithinReason]

I everyone in the world adopted a vegan diet CO2 emissions would drop by 13%. Still eating pork, poultry, eggs and fish would reduce it by 8.6%:

https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food

[mrob]

That's "CO2e" (CO2 equivalent, measured in global warming potential), not CO2. The time scale isn't specified, despite making a big difference in some cases, so I'll assume it's calculated over 20 years, which seems to be the most common. It's important to distinguish CO2 from CO2e, because a large part of CO2e emissions from animal farming are methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane emissions could be reduced in multiple ways, e.g. we could switch to farming kangaroos, which don't produce methane, or supplement cow feed with seaweed, which was found to dramatically reduce methane production:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

[aziaziazi]

We also may stop it altogether, kangaroo included and gain:

- those 4.4% co2e difference, which is quite consequent

- freshwater savings

- land savings (especially forest)

- the ability to feel morally good when looking and thinking about the food we eat

[uxcolumbo]

It's not just about CO2 - it's also that the large scale meat & dairy industry requires way more resources, destroys natural habitats and creates a ton of pollution.

[myshpa]

From the article you've linked:

"In a hypothetical scenario in which everyone in the world went vegan by 2050, the regrowth of trees and wilderness could sequester around 547 billion tonnes of additional CO2. Each year we emit around 36 billion tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuels, so that’s equal to around 15 years of emissions at our current levels. They also estimate an additional 225 billion tonnes of CO2 could be stored in soils ..."

That's much more impactful than reducing emissions alone. It would store a load of carbon while preserving biodiversity (paramount for healthy ecosystems).

[jgilias]

The URL is not working, can you update it?

The study probably explores what would happen if _everyone_ did that. And that’s the issue right there. Everyone casts a wide net, it includes climate deniers, poor people, rich people, hard core dairy aficionados, etc, etc. The single most important thing an individual can do is inducing systemic change in one way or another. Preferably somehow avoiding alienating the bulk of the audience, as that may end up with people in power who actively undermine any efforts towards solving the situation.

[uxcolumbo]

I clicked it - It works.

There is also a link to the PDF - try this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w.pdf.

RE: The single most important thing an individual can do is inducing systemic change in one way or another.

And that was my point. Vote with your wallet and inform others in your circle that reducing / avoiding will have positive impact. This will trigger systemic change.

Is it the only thing we can do, no it's not, but it's something you and I can do right now.

[Ekaros]

Why stop at meat and dairy. Why not go all the way, select handful of optimal foods and only allow those to be sold or grown. Anyone doing anything else would heavily punished?

After all, if we ban beef. We have accepted that taste has no meaning in life and we can just ban everything not mandatory like spices and herbs.

[uxcolumbo]

Do you think that only animal flesh derived foods are tasty?

It's about cutting out food that create the biggest damage to our biosphere, which is the large scale meat & dairy industry.

RE: Why not go all the way, select handful of optimal foods and only allow those to be sold or grown. [...] ban everything not mandatory like spices and herbs.

This is not about banning meat & dairy. And you can't seriously compare meat & dairy to herbs & spices.

[bevesce-]

I'm eating vegetarian food most of the time, with an exception from time to time. I've tried doing vegan. Vegan food can be tasty or even very tasty. No vegan food is as good as steak or cheese. Another thing is that I have no idea how to eat enough protein, on vegan diet, without feeling terrible.

[uxcolumbo]

Respect for trying. Don't feel the pressure having to change all at once. You can gradually reduce.

Cheese is actually not that good for you [0], but yes it's tasty.

Plant based foods provide enough protein for athletes and body builders. [1] [2]

[0] https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/he...

[1] https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/pr...

[2] https://gamechangersmovie.com/

[vkou]

Why have speed limits on the road?

We have accepted that human life is worthless, because cars are allowed to drive fast enough to cause fatal crashes, may as well remove all limits alltogether.

---

Absolutist arguments are absolutely absurd.

[goatlover]

Vegan arguments are absolutist. Everyone isn't going to give up meat. I doubt even the majority of people will by 2050. However, it's possible enough people could be convinced to reduce meat consumption to make a difference. It alone won't solve climate change.

[_Algernon_]

Removing subsidies on meat production and flying are the systemic variants of those individual choices. People would be vegan no-flyers in no time.

[MandieD]

Or we’d return to the meat/travel consumption patterns of the early 20th century: trans-Atlantic trips being a once-in-a-lifetime thing or once-every-few-years for the well-off, and the Sunday roast/chicken being the highlight meal of the week.

[aziaziazi]

Lol I’m probably a XIXth century time traveler regarding your scale. Not feeling unhappy, comme join me in the past guys!

[myshpa]

Sure ... but without a significant portion of people in the population being vegans it's a political suicide to even suggest that.

It has to start in our own kitchens.

[comprev]

it's the same mentality as those who feel bullet-proof safe rooms in schools is a better solution that giving up their guns.

[MrVandemar]

>You mean, like, switching to a vegan diet, using public transport and stop flying? Those seem radical enough for most people in the Northern Hemisphere.

One of these things is not like the other.

Vegan diets — and I support them in principle — do little or nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

Vegan diets just don't deliver enough calories and essential nutrients without (industrial) supplementation, and veganism depends on broadscale monoculture crops with massive fossil-fuel inputs to grow, harvest and distribute, and exist in places largely that used to be healthy ecosystems supporting animal life.

Nice idea, and I'm cool with the overall philosophy and principles of veganism, but yoking it to climate activism, conflating it with strategies to "save the planet" is misguided.

[myshpa]

Such a load of bull. I'm sick of people ignoring the science. Educate yourself before writing anything next time. It's clear as day you're wrong. It's the most impactful thing you can as an individual do.

We need to stop fossil fuels asap, stop animal ag (deforestation, pollution, biodiversity loss, etc.), reform agriculture (soils, biodiversity, poisons) and start reforesting/afforesting.

There are tons of studies that show it's the best way to stop the climate crisis.

How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449

Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/

Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm

The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi...

Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...

If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares. The expansion of land for agriculture is the leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century

https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm

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

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

Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

Livestock and climate change: what if the key actors in climate change are... cows, pigs, and chickens?

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Livestock-and-climate-...

The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4

Study finds forest protection successfully leads to reduced emissions at global scale

https://phys.org/news/2023-06-forest-successfully-emissions-...

[Ygg2]

> Such a load of bull. I'm sick of people ignoring the science. Educate yourself before writing anything next time

What are chances that everyone globally will just switch to vegan diet to save on CO2 before 2050 or whatever end date? My fair estimate is zero.

It's like wishing people aren't lazy or corrupt or that are more honest. To quote the poet "You don't get what you want".

[myshpa]

Animal ag. is the leading culprit of the mess we're in (together with fossil fuels, ofc). The reason nobody at political level talks about it is because they feel it's a political suicide.

If there was a significant portion of the population with changed habits (and numbers of vegans and vegetarians are rising fast in the last few years, so much that it's affecting sales of meat and dairy already), the abolishing of animal ag subsidies will be much more probable.

Then without subsidies the reduction in consumption is automatic - the price would take care of that. 90% (IIRC) of corporate profits in animal ag comes from subsidies.

Otherwise ... to quote the poet ... "You'll get what you don't want".

[layer8]

> If there was a significant portion of the population with changed habits

It’s exceedingly hard to get people to change habits. That’s why people in this thread don’t believe it will be a realistic (timely enough) solution if left up to mere individual decisions and not forced by systemic changes.

[myshpa]

I don't believe in systemic changes coming on its own anymore. They will be forced by angry citizens, or not at all.

We've had 50+ years of climate change warnings, and nothing has really happened.

We're still not doing much... For example, the percentage of coal consumption is still around 82%, even after minor advancements in renewable sources.

Nobody at the political level is even talking about the need for a reduction in meat consumption, despite scientists being very vocal about this.

I simply feel that this is something that has to come (could come) from "down below."

[Ygg2]

> Animal ag. is the leading culprit of the mess we're in

Citations needed. I think cars/trucks are much bigger polluters than cows. Not to mention the ubiquitous industries of plastic, steel and cement.

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

Points that Agriculture is 18.6% of total CO2 emissions. Out of which plants related emissions make like 4%. Granted, part of that is animal feed, but you'll have to replace meat calories with something else.

[myshpa]

Check this thread, I've already provided some of the sources.

All those sectors you've mentioned are absolutely problem too. Animal ag is 15-26% of our carbon budget, depending on which source you'll pick. That's already bigger that cement, and almost all of transport.

But animal ag is not just the emissions alone, and not only cows. Just with afforestation potential (land use change of pastures) we'd be able to store our entire 1.5C carbon budget.

This is a short (and incomplete) list of impacts of (animal & industrial) agriculture. It's imho clear from this list that animal ag (which is 75-80% of all ag) is the major culprit.

- Greenhouse gas emissions

- Deforestation (40+% of pastures used to be forests)

- Land degradation

- Water pollution

- Water overconsumption

- Loss of biodiversity

- Antibiotic resistance

- Ocean dead zones

- Inefficient land and resource use

- Ethical concerns regarding animal welfare

- Zoonotic diseases

- Air pollution

- Eutrophication

- Soil erosion

- High energy consumption

- Chemical runoff from pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers

- Destruction of habitats and ecosystems

- Inequality in global food distribution

- Public health risks from foodborne illnesses

- Nutrient pollution

- Strain on waste management systems

- Overfishing (40-70% of plankton gone, sharks 90% gone, fish almost gone)

[chewz]

> I'm sick of people ignoring the science. Educate yourself before writing ...

Oh science again... You totalitarians are always calling for science when lacking arguments to convince people....

Nazism was supposedly based on race science. Communism was entirely scientific. So were COVID lockdowns.

And now climate science. It isn't science it is just weird millenarian religion. Please stop propagating your religious beliefs on HN.

[myshpa]

Science isn't about belief or religion; it's about objective inquiry and understanding the world based on evidence.

It's okay to question and be critical, but dismissing scientific consensus without proper examination won't lead us anywhere.

Let's put aside the conspiracy theories and embrace the wonders of knowledge and progress that science offers ;)

[Incipient]

Even by environmentalist website estimates, eggs, milk, chicken, and pork are 4x or so more than some crops. Going vegan is just the wrong avenue to target climate change.

That'll take a monumental effort, for a fairly minor impact. "eat less beef" sure.

People leaving the aircon on 24/7. Horribly uninsulated homes, buying and returning hundreds of items.

But ultimately, it's a shift to renewables+storage/nuclear that has to happen.

Pushing for people to go vegan is essentially counter-productive.

[johnnyworker]

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...

Speaking of flying, some billionaires have a second jet scouting ahead for air pockets. Remember Macron slyly taking off his watch under the table as he preached austerity? As much as I am frustrated by the apathy and short-sightedness of people, it's hard to blame them when those could so easily go first instead just consolidate and line their pockets where they can, to prepare for a crash they help make unavoidable that way. With private bunkers and going to Mars and freezing themselves and stuff that is so much derpier, less rational, so much more alienated, than some average person thinking they'd like to see the ocean one more time, so fuck it, they'll book a flight.

[junon]

These personal decisions make little difference in the grand scheme of things.

[myshpa]

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

This quote emphasizes the idea that if individuals embody and practice positive values and actions, it can lead to a significant impact on the world around them. Similarly, if everyone were to act rightly, it would undoubtedly result in a different and improved world.

[junon]

> if everyone were to act rightly

Yes, but that's not reality. Hoping for the best whilst not actually making a dent in carbon emissions is not helping the problem at all.

[myshpa]

All significant changes in the past came from people loudly demanding change, be it through mass protests, civil rights movements, revolutionary actions, or the collective voice of individuals seeking justice and progress. These impassioned calls for change have driven societies to challenge existing norms, break down oppressive systems, and pave the way for a more equitable and inclusive future.

People have to change themselves first (to break the walls built by others) to want to change the society.

Hope is not hopium. Hope is necessary for any action to take place.