this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
283 points (95.8% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5369 readers
494 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
283
Plant-based meat needs government support to scale up, but a culture war stands in the way (grist.org)
submitted 4 months ago by jeffw to c/[email protected]
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago

Food is so deep, culturally speaking. Many people have deep memories and positive associations with making meat dishes, and "forcing" plant based meats looks like the government intruding on that. It feels overbearing for a government to try and reduce eating of meat through any monetary means, even if it just means reducing / removing subsidies already in place.

It's doubly worse because splitting meat eating through money means the rich can still afford and eat meat in plentiful ways, where the poor won't be able to. This makes meat a wealth signifier (more than it already is), which can backfire pretty spectacularly.

In a policy sense, I actually have no idea how to limit meat eating. Even Carbon Taxes tend to have exceptions for beef.