this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
78 points (100.0% liked)
News
1751 readers
6 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So we're going to build more nuclear and hydro right instead of relying on shitass wind power (like Germany, worked out real well for them)? Right? Oh, no, we're probably going to double-down against nuclear while people like Gates fly around in private jets telling us to stop eating meat.
So I like to think about it needing to be bottom up and top down change. So while the main contributors will likely continue as usual, we as consumers can change demand and markets with enough impetus. And also vote for officials that forefront these issues. In a crisis you just have to do what you can.
I can agree to an extent, but I don't think you should have to suffer for the sake of those jackasses. Lol I am waiting for the billionaire simps to flood in and defend people like Gates, they tend to flood in on topics like this.
It can be bad to fly around in a private jet and to eat beef at the same time. Just because someone else isn't walking the walk, that doesn't make it meaningless for you to do so. Not so much the private jet example, but when a lot of people try to absolve themselves of responsibility for market factors driving climate change, they point out a handful of enormous corporate entities doing harm. The problem with that is that those emissions are making things that we buy. That's where eating less meat, especially beef, comes from. (Also it's just unsustainable for people to eat as much meat as the average American, for reasons beyond climate change.)
So there's the billionaire simps. No, jetting around everywhere is much worse than enjoying a steak, and guess what these elitist assholes do? Both of these things. Are you actually going to be happy eating soy or bug burgers for the rest of your life while they enjoy fillet mignons? Why does the "eat the rich" rhetoric suddenly die out in this particular debate?
Except it kinda does as their continued burn of private jet fuel yearly is worse than every single flight I've taken in the last decade combined multiplied by a factor of 100. You have to remember when a peon such as yourself takes a 747 your CO2 output is shared between every single person on that plane plus any potential cargo (including dead bodies, this is more common than you think) meaning your impact is actually not that much. When Bill Gates jet sets to Davos to tell you to eat the bugs and live in the pod that fuel burned is used solely on him meaning his impact is much larger than yours ever could be.
Also, notice how none of these rich asshats are investing in electric or hydrogen aircraft? Or lab grown meat? That would literally solve the climate issue while still allowing us peons to enjoy life a little bit. It actually might even bring down the cost of flying so that even more people can enjoy things. They don't support these things because it's not about the environment, it's not about climate change, it's about controlling you. It's about making you live the lowest quality of life possible to enrich them which again it's funny how the "eat the rich" narrative vanishes during this specific debate.
Yeah so do you know how polluting your average vegetable is in terms of the climate? Are you also willing to only eat veggies that are grown in your local vicinity during their on-season? That means if beans just aren't grown close to you, or it's not the on-season for growing beans in your area, you're just not allowed to eat beans because that'd mean trucking them in and trucks burn fuel which is bad for the planet!
You can't be selective just because you may not personally eat meat. It's either all or nothing or else you start to become hypocritical.
We could summarize your entire comment as you not wanting to do anything yourself because you can't easily do everything yourself.
To rapid fire respond to the rest of it: investors are putting money into hydrogen and electric planes, they are putting money into lab grown meat, lab grown meat would not literally solve the problem (vegetables and grains would), and you can still enjoy life without eating a beef burger.
If billionaires controlled either of us, do you think I'm more under their control by eating vegetables and chicken patties than you are eating the beef they sold you instead? Do you think billionaires wouldn't profit off of you flying in an airplane more? Do you think climate friendly transportation options like public transit and cycling stand to make billionaires more money than the likes of cars and commercial flights? I feel like we're more under corporate control ignoring climate advice than we are following it.
So you'd be wrong. You can do things without reducing your quality of life to aid the rich which is 100% what you're advocating for (because you're a billionaire simp).
Ahhh yes, we should be barred from eating any and all meat, soy and bugs only, but the billionaires should still be able to enjoy steaks and burgers right? Also, why don't you give up everything you enjoy? Cut off all of your streaming subscriptions because data centers are huge environmental concerns in of themselves! Sell your house because I am sure that's bad for the planet somehow. You should be restricted to a pod all hours of the day that you're not slaving away at your job! Actually, let's go full bore, let's fine you every single time you flatulate because that's methane output and methane is bad! Nevermind that the vegan diet they're going to force you on leads to more of that.
Also, you clearly don't know how dirty your average produce is lol lmao. How do you think you're able to go to the grocery store and pick up a carrot no matter what part of the year it is? So following your ruleset, unless you want to be hypocritical, you should only be allowed to purchase veggies that are currently growing locally.
So that would be you given you're simping for them and playing right into their hand. Also, drop the disingenuous argument, we all know the likes of Gates aren't the ones selling me a burger. People like those in the Mars family (one of the richest families in the food industry) aren't jetsetting around telling us to have no enjoyment out of life.
Again, not the same billionaires that would be enriched with my consumption. Though Bombardier's CEO is on the climate virtue signal train just in case you needed some extra juicy irony, and I don't exactly see him investing into selling a hydrogen powered private jet. I will never have any interaction with any one of their products.
This is where I think you fail to see the point entirely. It's not about making them money, lol lmao, it's about further enrichment of themselves at your detriment. Why do you think the people who can most afford the things that they demand us to do are the ones least likely to do them? Because 👏 it's 👏 about 👏 control 👏 not 👏 about 👏 the 👏 climate. It's why you see Gates enjoying a big juicy steak while at the same time telling you you don't deserve to have a steak.
Just ignore the fact that climate activists were funded by corporations such as the oil corps.
Except not eating dead animals doesn't lessen a person's quality of life.
This idea that you are suffering because you ate a piece of tofu is absolute nonsense and I suspect somebody who figured out how to use the fediverse isn't this daft.
I really, really don't understand why you've latched on to bugs. Nor am I barring people from eating meat. I don't have that power. What I do have the power to do is to buy less meat myself, especially beef, to reduce the quantity of it that we produce by that much more, and I'm encouraging you to do the same, because I genuinely believe your quality of life is determined by more than how much beef you eat, and I hope you do too. Also there are a lot of good veggie dishes to eat that don't involve soy at all.
Further enrichment of themselves would mean making more money. Billionaires really, really don't care about what you eat unless they sold it to you themselves. Gates is not in the food business, and if he cares about what you ate, it's also because of the climate. He will, however, care if you're not using Windows or Bing or Xbox.
I work with computers all day, and even I don't see the world as binary as you do. I eat beef too. Sometimes. I try to do so far less these days. It's not a detriment to my quality of life in the least bit. If I'm at a barbecue and all they have is beef burgers, I'm not going to refuse them, but if I'm at a Burger King, I'll get the chicken sandwich or the Impossible burger. Every serving of beef I don't eat is better than choosing to do so instead. I don't excuse billionaires for flying in private jets, nor do I have the ability to stop them in any way; they're certainly not in this thread for us to talk to. So in lieu of that, I know that I can at least reduce some amount of climate impact by my choices in the market. That doesn't mean it's reduced to zero. It means it's reduced.
If Gates is not in the food business, what is he doing being the single largest private landowner of farmland in the United States? He owned 269,000 Acres as of 2022.
Proof from AP
News to me. Fair enough. The rest still stands, and we know the environmental impact of these foods.
I agree with this sentiment, while I cannot control what others do I can make changes in the capacity that I am able. I also think that change drives markets, dairy alternative milks are a great example of this. So while our efforts may be small in comparison to the ones that others with more could make, it doesn't make them meaningless and better yet acts as an example to those who are unsure or sitting on the fence.
I also think we may have reached a point where it's just too late to debate what the best action is and it would be better to try and do something with the view to this being an emergency.
Where I live and how I grew up, farming is a way of life. I’m not sure what the numbers are but it seems to me pork is a very hot meat, from beginning to end. I probably should research that, and the only corporate farms near are fruit and vegetable. Corn is also very hot, and the industries and family farms rely on it. Economically, the most eaten meat in my area (very underserved) is chicken and fish, whether bought or raised/caught. And wild game, I guess.
The way I understood it last I saw it broken down was that fish and poultry are better than pork, and pork is way better than beef. Corn is corn because the government subsidizes it due to some very old economic conditions and no one ever got it off the books, and I understood that to have far more negative effects on our diets (high-fructose corn syrup) than on the climate.
Thanks, I’ll definitely look into it after chores and errands. I’m wondering if corn-sweat is considered…
I appreciate your consideration, hopefully we'll see change at all levels!
Nuclear power doesn't pay for itself apparently. Also it takes a very long time to even build a reactor. Wind and hydro are much cheaper to build and can be done rapidly.
Nuclear power only takes a long time due to government red tape pushed by idiot environmentalists (who, ironically, got major financial backing from oil corps). Literally most of the time taken to build nuclear is clearing regulatory hurdles. Also, you should see what shutting down nuclear in favor of wind has done to Germany. They literally had to go back and restart coal plants because, guess what, wind fucking sucks and Germany doesn't have the geography for hydro.
Oh, and the time to build nuclear can be further reduced (pending removal of red tape) by converting coal plants to nuclear. I think people forget a nuclear power plant is just a steam turbine powered by a hot rock, and a coal power plant is a steam generator powered by burning a rock. The majority of the construction is building the actual turbine component so you can literally just swap out the power source for said component.
It's this kind of nonsense conspiracy theories that really damage your side of the argument. Nuclear power plants are complex pieces of technologies that are very hard to get right, secure, and make safe. The idea that there is a cabal of massive corporations funding environmentalists to fight nuclear power is laughable.
Germany isn't the whole world. The fact that your entire stance is based only on what happened in Germany is undermining your advocacy.
no it's not just that. No wonder you think it's possible to build them cheap and fast.
/me writes long winded response, looks at it for a minute, deletes it.
Wow, this place is really starting to feel like home
I don't want anyone to feel like they can't comment, I know this post has got a bit unproductive in the conversation but it's an important topic and you should make the points you want.
Typically it happens when I'm not actually making a point and it's better to move on than spend the time required to sort out my thoughts.
I get what you mean, I do the same. I just don't want this place to end up like reddit where people don't want to comment or post.
Wind farms have been very successful in the UK but we are also quite a windy country. A lot of people are now on green tariffs so I feel as though it's moving in a good direction.
Wind farms have been a complete and total disaster in Germany, however. Also, the UK is not doing too hot either it's having to rely heavily on coal plants. Seems like every locale that decides to hedge its bets on wind rather than nuclear always has this issue where they have to use coal to make up for wind power's deficiencies.
Wind farms are a disaster in Germany because of bureaucracy. Not because they are not economic. Siemens Gamesa is doing quite well, despite not building many wind farms in Germany.
More likely we are going to keep burning coal and oil while arguing about which green energy to utilize until we just can't because its no longer abundanza. Destroying habitats and whatnot along the way. Some of us will try to enjoy the what we can of what is left of nature while trying to live as simply as possible on as low a resources as we can manage. Others will feel entitled to all sorts of crap because of whatever and a small amount will waste resources beyond what most people can imagine because of their incredible wealth.
What's wrong with wind power?
Here in the UK, wind currently makes up ~1/3 of our energy production. In fact, we've built so much wind power we have more than our grid can handle... there's a bit of a scandal atm where at least one wind farm has been paid to switch off (so as not to overload the grid).