this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
1289 points (97.5% liked)

World News

39039 readers
2661 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] teuniac_ 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I can't make other people's choices, but I can support policies that make polluting more costly. For example, included in this would be slashing many agriculture subsidies. It doesn't make any sense to subsidize dairy farmers and it creates unfair competition for non-dairy alternatives.

You don't get to pick whether some family you've never met in Bangladesh eats pork for dinner tonight.

Come on, be reasonable. These things are at the bottom of any vegan's list who are concerned with the environment. The carbon footprint of people living in Bangladesh is very small and people have way less means to make changes to their routines.

Even when political movements partially succeed, the outcome may be to make things much worse.

Ask yourself, why be concerned with environmentalists if the earth is burning and drowning at the same time. Part of the UK is going to disappear, by 2050 200,000 houses and businesses will be gone. Jakarta will too along with Dhaka, Lagos and many more densely populated areas. This isn't far away in the future, but it has already started.

By 2100 22% of land that was well suited for habitation won't be anymore, including California.

There is nothing environmentalist about these facts, they are not controversial in the scientific community. But in any case, they are so serious that it seems odd to focus on the unintended side effects of environmentalism. If anything, we need more of it now than ever.

Environmentalists today need to very seriously consider the question of whether today's climate crisis is the direct result of the success of the anti-nuclear movement 50 years ago.

It'd be a bit much to identify that as the one single cause of climate change. The carbon footprint per capita in France is lower than that of the UK but still not low enough. But yea, the anti-nuclear movement sure doesn't help today.

Oh btw, current Western meat based diets are not compatible with a low enough footprint to combat climate change. People are going to have to eat way less meat and dairy.