- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
“We have to stop destroying the planet as we feed ourselves,” a World Bank official said, as red meat and dairy drive CO2 emissions.
Cows and milk are out, chicken and broccoli are in — if the World Bank has its way, that is.
In a new paper, the international financial lender suggests repurposing the billions rich countries spend to boost CO2-rich products like red meat and dairy for more climate-friendly options like poultry, fruits and vegetables. It’s one of the most cost-effective ways to save the planet from climate change, the bank argues.
The politically touchy recommendation — sure to make certain conservatives and European countries apoplectic — is one of several suggestions the World Bank offers to cut climate-harming pollution from the agricultural and food sectors, which are responsible for nearly a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.
…
The paper comes at a diplomatically strategic moment, as countries signed on to the Paris Agreement — the global pact calling to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — prepare to update their climate plans by late 2025.
You must log in or # to comment.
I cant wait for some conservative idiot to spin this in the worst possible way. Mixed in with some lies, whataubout-isms and straw-mans for a delicious disinformation-coktail!
Iowa did something already last year being a major pork producer. Kim Reynolds and her GOP ilk fucking suck. Already ruined and continuing to destroy a once nice and progressive state with shitty policy and hate. Remember when Iowa was at the front of gay marriage? I miss being proud of at last some of the changes coming from here, now I can’t get if here fast enough. Finally got a WFH position, now I just need to convince my wife that she can fly back to see her parents that live about 3 hours away as is.
Iowa was at the front of gay marriage?
I still can hear the podcasts about America’s growing homosexual corn problem. Even if they never happened.
I agree, let’s end subsidies for the industries that are fucking up the climate. Fuck all the weak snowflakes who don’t want to change their meat consumption. How hard is it to not eat beef? Not hard, people are just weak. So hit them in the wallet then, if that’s what it takes.
Even as a rancher (native prairie, low input) I agree beef is way too cheap. Well, it was, now it’s starting to be more appropriately priced.
Considering everything from the labour involved in raising it ethically to the nutritional value, the consumer pays very little for beef for what they’re getting. Even if it means people eat less beef, the price should go up. It would also favour small farmers like me who would rather raise less cows sustainably on grass than overgraze chasing high volume sales.
may be turned into a culture war battle
May be? Bit optimistic, don’t you think?
deleted by creator
Me “not eating pork” is already a political statement to my mom’s side of the family and has been for a at least a decade. A government body recommending less beef? The horror!
Bet they claim there’s not enough land for solar panels, too. If we all eat one or two fewer burgers every week, there’s plenty of land.
How about a carbon tax?
Everything should have a carbon tax. Someone once told me, “but who would pay for that tax?” Implying that we will be the ones to pay it. Thats the freaking idea.
The rich have problems paying just their regular owed taxes, nothing even exceptional; they draft legislation to lower their own tax rates while keeping taxes on labor the same.
Why is capital gains taxed at a lower rate than income? Is sitting on a pile of money and watching it grow somehow more noble than sweating and hard work?
I think a carbon tax is necessary but I think getting the responsible parties in our industrial world to actually pay it, would be extremely difficult. You’d never see such bipartisan cooperation in various governments until someone threatens the subsidies for the liquid black gold.
There seems to be an awareness void concerning the concept of who uses the most carbon and the creative non regressive ways in which those taxes can be distributed. I’m sure that’s a coincidence though…
Carbon taxes need a caveat that prices cannot change due to the tax. Otherwise it’s just another way for big business to profit.
“We had to raise our prices because of the carbon tax!”
“But the tax is 8% and your prices have gone up 20%”
shrugs “Dunno. Carbon tax.”
The impossible love of fossil fuel companies for carbon taxes - ScienceDirect
Economists agree that carbon taxes are the most effective solution for climate change mitigation. But where do fossil fuel companies stand on carbon taxes? I analyse how the 100 largest oil and gas companies communicate on carbon taxes. Surprisingly, I find that 54% of companies that have a policy on carbon taxes support them (78% for the 50 largest). This is puzzling as an effective carbon tax should reduce the revenues and reserve value of fossil fuel companies. To understand this paradox, I offer non-mutually exclusive reasons why fossil fuel companies might support carbon taxes. Oil and gas companies could use a carbon tax to get rid of the competition from coal, create a level playing field and remove regulatory uncertainty. Or they think that these taxes will not affect them because demand for oil and gas is inelastic or that international coordination will fail and lead to leakages. Finally, it could be that this is simply a communication exercise. A carbon tax helps them shift the responsibility from fossil fuel companies to customers, voters and elected officials.
As a bonus it’s much healthier. Win win. Though a large portion of the population won’t see it that way.
No subsidies for anything actively harming the environment.
So no subsidies at all then.
Even wind and solar are detrimental to the areas of land queried for the elements to make them.
They are replacing much worse systems
The net harm to the environment is lower because of them.
Net harm is not what you said though.
Wow, you sure are a Technical Genius
What if I told you that television shows were dangerous? It’s true. In the year 2000, four out of every five injuries occurred in a home that owned a VHS copy of Robocop III. Someone might say, “That’s compelling Robocorrelation, but that data alone does not suggest Robocausation.” Fine. But maybe your first instinct was to say, “Robocop III is a movie, not a TV show, you fucking dumbass.” If so, then congratulations, idiot, you’re a Technical Genius. You’re smart enough to spot a technicality, but too dumb to know everyone else did too and it was light years away from the point. You’re the kind of person who tells your doctor, “Um, it’s Chief Chirpa?” when he tells you that getting the Wicket doll out of your asshole will require surgery. “And, um,” you’ll add, “it’s an action figure? Maybe you should have gone to a non-stupid medical school.”
https://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-people-planet-are-all-donald-trump
I would think that’s implied. Almost every activity where you’re creating something can be considered harmful because you can’t create something from nothing.
If we take the stance that we should consider harm in absolute, then whatever support you might be getting should be cut off because we individually are the most harmful being on the planet. It wouldn’t matter if you cut yourself off from society, build a little cottage in the woods and live a frugal lifestyle, the absolute harm is still many times higher than any other non-human living being on the planet could have. The good it would do doesn’t matter because we’re only looking at harm.
In what way does it benefit the discussion to talk about harm in absolute? Because from my perspective it has no benefits, it just comes across as a contrarian copout.
Dinosaurs back on the menu boyz
Not in Florida
Sounds good to me, I love chicken and veggies!
Same! Well, TBH chicken often tastes gross to me (grew up with a parent that thought ‘boil it in maybe-salted water’ was the way to go). But there’s plenty of non-beef options! Tofu, turkey, textured vegetable protein, it’s all good. (TVP’s great for things like sauces, where you just need the texture of ground beef, but the other flavors would drown it out anyway). Even a peanut butter and jelly sandwich makes for an easy work lunches.
Ground turkey is actually a surprisingly good ground beef substitute in a number of dishes.
We use ground turkey almost all the time over ground beef. It’s great in chili, tacos, meat sauce, lasagna, etc. The only time I use ground beef anymore is when I get it free from my folks (they always support a local 4h kid and purchase part of a cow).
We’ve been using ground turkey instead of ground beef for couple of years now, never had a dish where I missed the beef.
I’ve been using ground pork, chicken, and turkey instead of beef for the most part for a while now. I’ve noticed that when I do use beef, it’s kinda gross compared to the others. Like it can get a bit of a BO smell to it.
It made me realize I don’t even really like beef. I’ve mostly gravitated to instances of it that grind it up and mix with a bunch of spices and stuff like meatballs and burgers. The beef flavour itself isn’t really pleasant, I find.
Well, you might just be buying trash beef.
I still enjoy beef, I’m just eating far less of it than before.
It is possible, but even if there is beef I’d enjoy now, at this point I’d rather go on believing there isn’t. I don’t think I’m missing much.
Grilled, baked, and fried are all good ways to try chicken but boiled? Damn, no thanks.
TIL some people never heard of poached chicken. It’s great if you poach it in really strong stock, comes out really moist. Great for shredding or chunks in salad
I think the important bit is “maybe-salted water”. My same parent didn’t like garlic, so I didn’t get exposed to it (or most other seasonings) until college.
Not to worry. My partner is trying to make up for lost time keeps incorporating actually-seasoned chicken into meals. I’m to the point where “well, it tastes good when he does it, but I’ll still not cook chicken for myself or order it in a restaurant”.
Yeah, boiling a chicken sounds nasty as hell, but I guess if you did it right it could be good. Closest thing I’ve heard of is chicken soup lol
TBH chicken often tastes gross to me (grew up with a parent that thought ‘boil it in maybe-salted water’ was the way to go).
Funny, this is why most people hate veggies
I also suspect an overexposure to canned veggies is also to blame. Canned veggies can be soggy-gross. I really like frozen veggies, though. They fill the same “lasts nearly forever” niche, but with a better texture.
Oh, and kale can go stuff itself. Kale and collard greens are the only two leafy greens I just can’t stand.
Canned green beans are great. I love them mushy, hate them crunchy. No idea why.
Frozen veggies are good, but they don’t always cook the same. Frozen Brussels sprouts fry up great, but I tried roasting them on the grill last night and they just turned mushy. Not sure if it was them or me, but I’ve done fresh ones on the grill just fine.
I’m also a fan of canned green beans, but only the french sliced ones. I think that helps with the stringiness you can sometimes get. Oh! Creamed corn is also a lovely comfort food for me.
Kale, IMO, has to be cooked. I love a good roasted/destemmed kale tossed onto just about anything, but raw kale can fuck right off.
It’s kind of funny that I’m very open to all sorts of new goods but still “traumatized” by the overcooked slop I got served as vegetables as a kid. Who knew spinach wasn’t this black slimy stuff from a can, but can be a tasty leafy vegetable?
Crazy how enthusiastic everyone here is about some rich guy telling us what we are allowed to eat.
He probably flies private and eats a steak every day.
While that needs to stop entirely, the 1%’ carbon footprint (yes, it applies to them too, this is what everyone here is actually pointing out) sums up to about 15% of global GHG emissions at the consumption level. Huge, but they are few, they aren’t “masses”.
We need GHG emissions to drop at least 100% (to 0%) and then we need to remove carbon (so that’s negative emissions) to get closer to the safer atmospheric CO2.
Hey, I have re read your comment a few times. Important info, but unsure how it relates to my comment. Rich people don’t contribute that much to C02? So they can tell me how to live my life?
Not to mention other things besides C02. Methane, garbage, water use
Hey, I have re read your comment a few times. Important info, but unsure how it relates to my comment. Rich people don’t contribute that much to C02?
There are 2 necessary changes as layers in this context:
-
There are also studies that show the GHGs for “rich people’s investments”. This is important because they are in the way of necessary adaptation and mitigation. We can’t do anything meaningful about climate and biosphere because that would require ending profiteering from planetary destruction, it would require decommodification.
-
Rich people’s consumption is excessive for anything. Not just their carbon footprint, but their ecological footprint. But they are a small minority, especially the richest. Being a small minority means that if they lose their… wealth and become wage workers, that’s going mean only a decrease of 15% GHGs. This 15% is not meaningful to avert ruining the planet’s surface. We need more than 100% (zero emissions and then removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). This means that EVERYONE has to participate, which also means that we need cooperation. And you don’t have cooperation in a capitalist class society with all this “rat race” going on, you can’t, we’re literally all enemies (competitors) in this game.
So they can tell me how to live my life?
That’s one side of it, yes. To have any meaningful action, all sides of economic activity have to change, we need decreases in production (supply), but also in demand (consumption). If only production decreases, the demand side goes nuts and there’s hyperinflation and other problems. If only demand decreases (unlikely), the production side, which is owned by rich people, may decide to force and coerce an increase in demand somehow, as has been happening at least since the end of WW2.
Here, a game: https://play.half.earth/
-
“red meat”
What does this expression even means nowadays?
Beef should be expensive. It should return to what it was thirty or forty back: a luxury item. Nobody needs to eat a steak every day.
But is pork still - or again? - red meat? It had been disqualified as such some time back.
Bring on cheaper vegetables, please. I’m seeing cabbage peak at €2,19. Poultry is on average €2,29, peak on the €2,69. It’s borderline as expensive to make a pot of quality soup than to make a roast chicken.
Cheaper veg means either more subsidies or more slavery. Check out the greenhouses outside Almeria. You can see that place from space, and it’s chock full of African workers in 40C+ heat making a pittance.
I think meat benefits from corn being pretty much automated on a giant scale. Most veg needs workers to harvest it, and a lot of it rots quickly once picked.
You raise a good point and ending slavery should be a top concern.
I’m in Portugal, and we’ve had a few cases of slavery and abused foreign workers here as well, which is shameful for us as a nation, but we have many good examples of good practices where applying technology improved production, lowered waste, turned out better product for the consumer and allowed for less use of hand labour but with higher salaries.
The starting investment is high but the subsidies you mention could/should be converted into low or zero interest, long term loans and the money recirculated towards more improvements in the sector.
Greenhouses do consume immense ammounts of fertilizers but water is better manageable under those conditions than sowing corn, which is well known for being a syphon for water and agro chemicals, and usually leaves the soils destroyed after a few years of intense farming.
Any change for a better model done will a step forward. Cattle, as it is raised today, I don’t find it sustainable.
How about heavily carbon taxing the rich cunts, hmm?
You know, instead of another bullshit scheme to offset the responsibility of climate change to the majority of the population with the least control over it?
The problem with that is the rich still get to enjoy it and the rich live in excess. It would make more sense although logistically nonsensical to keep the price the same but only the poorest are allowed access to it
Why would that make any more sense?
It wouldn’t make sense because, as you’ve pointed out, it would be nonsensical
I understand the frustration about the injustice behind it, but it’s missing the point. Justice should never be the reason to support something thats so harmful to our environment. Imagine giving a private jet to every economically disadvantaged person in the name of equality - we’d be fucking ourselves over big time. Meat is actually a luxury product that’s only kept affordable based on some of the most environmentally destructive tools of capitalism.
It sucks that luxury products exist. It sucks that ultra rich people exist, but it’s the unfortunate fact of our times. Overturning this system is a seperate fight. And eating red meat won’t win it.
Or just fight back against private jet overusage and giants like Exxon?
Lately it has been reversed… Chicken prices have been more than pork… Even on the chicken quarters I normally get. I’m hoping once lab grown is scaled that we’ll be able to get steaks cheap.
As a vegetarian who’s been excited for lab grown meat since I’d heard of the concept a decade ago, I wouldn’t hold your breath. It’s looking like one of those things that sounds great on paper, but isn’t viable at larger scale.
They need to open up more Popeye’s
