I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring processes.
if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture. but that won't happen and we need a broad approach.
diet maintenance and it's downstream effects is a clear, easy goal that individuals can take on. meanwhile governments can tackle whatever industrial legal changes need to happen.
negating diet and food waste as a meaningful goal is harmful at best, and deliberate sabotage at worst.
you said [emphasis mine]
> If you're concerned about climate change and you want to raise the alarm, then raise the alarm about the continued burning of fossil fuels and the misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry. Misinformation that seems to be very successfully co-opting the animal rights movement, I might add. You want to be "on the right side of history" as you say in another comment? Don't side with the fossil fuel industry by directing attention away from their role in climate change.
my disagreement is that the fossil fuel industry somehow coopted the animal rights movement. certainly capital has embraced the plant-based diet as demand has risen, but to say that was driven by fossil fuels is absolutely bonkers to me.
we can do both. be loud about fossil fuels (we are. at least, some of us are), and also embrace a low waste, plant based (or low meat/no beef, I don't care) diet.
I wear a mask, get vaxxed, and I vote for leaders who affirm public health.
> I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring
processes.
Thanks for making it clear.
> if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to
make up for destructive practices of agriculture.
That's not right. Burning fossil fuels is the cause of climate change. To stop
burning fossil fuels is not to "make up" for agriculture emissions, it's to
remove the cause of climate change.
Agriculture is not causing climate change, burning fossil fuels causes climate
change. The emissions from agriculture are only of concern because of the
climate change that is already underway caused by the emissions from burning
fossil fuels. Without the emissions from burning fossil fuels there would be no
climate change and there would be nothing to "make up" for because emissions
from agriculture alone are not capable of causing climate change (again, because
the environment can deal with them).
You say that "diet maintenance" is a "clear, easy goal that individuals can take
on". It's much more than that. It's a fine excuse for people to not do anything
substantial to help stop climate change. They eat a bean burger once a week and
then go home happy that they did their bit for the environment, because their
favorite influencer told them so. And they do nothing to challenge the fuel
industry that keeps doing business as usual. Because their influencers don't
tell them to.
In order to stop climate change (we can't reverse it, but we can stop it
developing further) people must understand its causes. Farming is not the cause.
Burning fossil fuels is the cause. That's what we need to address.
But I think there's a misunderstanding. I made a comment about the
misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry, and you seem to have taken it
as a comment in a debate about individual vs collective action, to which I never
intended to contribute. I agree that personal action is necessary to stop
climate change. My point is that eating a vegan diet is not the right action
because farming is not the cause of climate change. Burning fossil fuels is the
cause of climate change and the goal of any personal action must be to stop
burning fossil fuels.
> my disagreement is that the fossil fuel industry somehow coopted the animal
rights movement.
Maybe "co-opted" is a strong word, but the industry can't be very unhappy with
the current state of affairs, where everybody's having a food fight on social
media about what to eat and lets the industry off the hook.
"Go vegan" is the popular message on social media because it's the easy answer.
But, the answer to what? The hard question is how we reconfigure our
civilisation to stop burning fossil fuels and causing climate change as a
result. Going vegan doesn't begin to address that question. What you eat is
irrelevant to how we generate power.
ultimately I think we are in agreement and I apologize for coming across so strongly in my original post.
I am also so frustrated at all the propaganda being disseminated by oil companies and bought out YouTubers alike, about doing only the smallest amount possible. and I completely agree the anthropocene epoch is clearly driven by fossil fuel.
I think people feel (and are in actuality) powerless to change the fossil fuel question. which is why the biggest contribution individuals can start today along side advocating policy change, is to halt wasting food, cut out or reduce meat (mainly beef) consumption to a tiny fraction of what is currently culturally normalized.
however in all honesty I live in pure horror of this whole thing every single day.
I'm worried too and I live in a place that will be hard hit by climate change. In fact, this year the house was flooded to an extent that was really unprecedented (we've had flooding before but not like that) and I wonder if that's just the sign of things to come. Who knows.
if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture. but that won't happen and we need a broad approach.
diet maintenance and it's downstream effects is a clear, easy goal that individuals can take on. meanwhile governments can tackle whatever industrial legal changes need to happen.
negating diet and food waste as a meaningful goal is harmful at best, and deliberate sabotage at worst.
you said [emphasis mine]
> If you're concerned about climate change and you want to raise the alarm, then raise the alarm about the continued burning of fossil fuels and the misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry. Misinformation that seems to be very successfully co-opting the animal rights movement, I might add. You want to be "on the right side of history" as you say in another comment? Don't side with the fossil fuel industry by directing attention away from their role in climate change.
my disagreement is that the fossil fuel industry somehow coopted the animal rights movement. certainly capital has embraced the plant-based diet as demand has risen, but to say that was driven by fossil fuels is absolutely bonkers to me.
we can do both. be loud about fossil fuels (we are. at least, some of us are), and also embrace a low waste, plant based (or low meat/no beef, I don't care) diet.
I wear a mask, get vaxxed, and I vote for leaders who affirm public health.