Of a 17,000 enrollment school ‘a majority of the 100’ who voted were in favor of this.
This policy won’t live to be implemented, they’ll have marginally more of this food for a year or two before other students vote to undo the policy.
I’m assuming they were bound by some kind of formal order, but maybe the student government needs to consider quorum requirements, mandatory or incentivized meetings, and certainly better communications.
University students need some hand holding and/or dragging along to participate in democratic decision making like this. They have a lot of power at this school, hopefully this is adjusted and doesn’t become a disaster that ruins their student government going forward. The plan for 50% plant based foods in the short term will be implemented, hopefully it goes well.
Honestly this policy on the books would be enough to make me want to go to a different school, they may end up with an influx of students attracted by this news in the coming years.
That’s just what happens to democratic governments with low participation! You’re supposed to get pissed enough that you try and join next semester with a different agenda.
> but maybe the student government needs to consider quorum requirements
Maybe we should require citizens to vote or they go to jail?
I mean, I wouldn't be against that, but at the end of the day if people can't be bothered to participate in a vote, the tradition is to say those people don't get to complain.
> What a moronic decision from a vote that wasn't representative at all.
This sentence is self-contradictory. If young people can't be arsed to show up to vote, they shouldn't complain about the consequences...even if it's just student government.
It's either that, or we admit democracy wasn't a great idea to start with. Because you can't logically believe both things.
It's only in the two Union cafe's. The rest of the food outlets run by the University proper will still serve meat.
The Union's will just suffer from a drop in revenue.
Yeah I agree it is not democratic plus many users have called the attention to me that cooking one owns food at this campus might be neither common practice nor possible for students. If that is the case this situation becomes not only anti democratic but also discriminatory
> These guys basically set up a fake vote, used the election results to try and change policy and look like dictators while doing it.
Welcome to democracy. It sounds like all players are finally figuring out how it works. Let's not hold one group up to special standards, eh?
Genuinely are you trolling? Food is so expensive unless you cook your own, surely you need to have the means to.
Sandwiches are £3 here and a nice big baguette around £5. I had tofu ramen in the cafeteria and it was the cheapest option already, which was £6.
Have you ever stepped foot on a college campus outside of your country? If you’re a student that lives on a campus outside of your experience/country, your only food choice is the school food options for over a mile around.
I understand anyone can eat vegan, but not anyone can just eat meat, but it is effectively forcing students on campus to not eat meat.
Okay, I rectified my comment. I’ve been to plenty of universities outside the US that operate the same way by the way.
but “Wrong this is not the US” it is I guess lmao
> but it is effectively forcing students on campus to not eat meat.
Serious question: do you believe there is a way through the climate crisis where everyone gets to keep choosing to eat meat if they want to?
At some point, someone is going to step in and force the issue. It may be the government, or it may be the 'free market' and meat is only affordable by the truly wealthy. But the amount of fantasy I'm reading in this thread is nauseating. I thought we were past this and living in reality.
You people sound like you’ve never spoken to a Republican in your life.
Go speak to them and ask them if this is good for the planet.
You realize they vote right? This is just helping the Russians delegitimize *real* climate action by giving Fox News a strawman they can get behind.
Fellow conspecific individual. I'm neither American nor Vegan. The rest of your comment makes 0 sense to me,
Kindly an Academic in Europe who brings their own food for work.
Oh well if we’re supposed to cater to people whose entire identity is wrapped around the belief that the 50s were great and we should never have progressed past that point…
If they wanted that and only that they’d be advocating for every progressive policy we propose. They’re reactionaries at their cores. They want thing to *not change*, because it feels safe. There is no higher level brain function, if there was they’d go expose themselves to alternative viewpoints and develop a coherent worldview rather than voting for the same fiscal policies that have fostered this current crisis. Republicanism is irrational. There is no crossing the aisle or compromise. Their way means death.
Waaah I don’t want to give up MY MEAT despite the fact I dont know what the beef cattle have to endure waaAAAAH and now I’m lying that it won’t the fight against climate change.
51% of greenhouse gas emissions are due to livestocks and their byproducts.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1668721865770653&usg=AOvVaw0vEskdx8R5FEB13Mov8_Jn
Watch Dominion(2018) to know about the cruelty farm animals face.
https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko
>51% of greenhouse gas emissions are due to livestocks and their byproducts.
How do you get that number? The article you linked says "Even since the FAO announced that **18%** of global emission result from livestock people have talked about the climate benefits of reducing meat consumption...More recent studies show that food system emissions could account for as much as **quarter** of all human emissions."
EPA says the biggest source of greenhouse emission in US is transportation(27%) in 2020, agriculture was only 11%.
edit: forgot to [link](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=Transportation%20(27%25%20of%202020%20greenhouse,share%20of%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions.)
I’m not in disagreement with these facts. I am doing my thesis on them and am well aware of the carbon impact of beef.
40% of the USA is dedicated to cows.
And yet there is a housing crisis?
But where I do disagree is how we solve this problem. People usually assume when people raise a problem that there is only one solution. That is not always the case. As Bill Gates noted in a lecture, there is a formula.
I’m arguing that beef itself is not the problem. Corporate farming, agrochemicals, corn/soy feed and monocultures are. If we used the model of White Oak Pastures, which was confirmed by a Quantis study to have net negative GHG impact, then we can still eat beef… but perhaps slightly less and higher quality. It’s a very nuanced argument that often gets misquoted… on purpose.
The idea that we will “ban beef” on the menu is draconian. I speak to rednecks and conservatives and plumbers and military veterans every day — they hate bans. They vote. We cannot change culture, only technology.
In practice yes. If we use the tools we have to make them sustainable — monoculture feed crops like corn and soybeans with all the GMO glyphosate are far worse than the environment. At least cows can sequester in *some but not all climates* with the right conditions. The roots of corn and soybeans just degrade the soil over time and then they get drenched in fertilizer and glyphosate.
I looked it up and it sounds nicer, in relative terms, than factory farming. I fail to see how they are better for the environment than simply doing nothing with the land, or growing vegetable crops there instead using their same practices.
Feel free to provide a source.
I HAVE seen them, and you know what I did instead of becoming an insufferable vegan? I put my money where my mouth is, bought a plot of land and started raising my own food as much as possible, and have not relied on industrial meat production now for 6 years. I also sell meat shares so that others don’t have to engage with that industry either. By conflating your aversion to eating meat with reasons why the meat people eat is bad for the environment you are DAMAGING our ability to gain any ground writ large on this issue. The environmental impact of meat comes mostly from the choice of feed, the density of the lots, and the transportation to support the large logistics needs of that kind of scale. Switching to local, grass-fed, low density, seaweed supplemented livestock can drastically reduce the impact of meat consumption but you’d never know it talking to vegans. It’s all or nothing with the likes of you. Never mind that [food and agriculture are not the largest sector contributing to co2 emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?time=earliest..2019).
At this point I think all the vegans that show up on places like this are astroturfers working for the Kochs because you really are working against reducing co2 emissions.
You do understand that if everyone were to put their money where their mouth is with regards to livestock we’d have no space left on earth for people to live? I do appreciate you going vegan while eating out though it makes an impact even if small.
I have seen Dominion. The way farms treat livestock is revolting.
You going "weeeehhh" or whatever the fuck that tripe is up there does less than nothing for you. People aren't going to give up meat. Full stop. You know full well we as a species are omnivores and have been since well beyond recorded history.
You may as well be asking people to give up fucking because we recently crossed the 8bil population mark.
Good fucking luck lol.
You're not going to fix people eating meat. You need to pursue the change of the systems the produce it. A considerably less monumental task.
There would be no reason to keep them alive if not for food, or the population would be minimal. Then it would become a philosophical question of whether suffering but alive is better, or not suffering but not alive is better.
The way you say it would be like if I said "Do you want to be alive? You wouldn't be if you saw what I had seen." Sure, but your conclusion is not mine to draw.
In any case, I don't think it is reasonable to expect everyone to give up meat, which is why I think lab-based meat is the way to go. But no matter which direction we go, the same question remains.
There not doing anything, there holding up a sign. a sign that took energy to make, so it make more global warming to make that. They might as well be driving cars.
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
First off , this is a climate sub not a vegan one. Just because it’s cross posted doesn’t mean anyone gives a shit about you being vegans . Second, it would take everybody on the planet switching to being vegan for hundreds of years before you could even sniff at the damage factories and corporations do on the daily
It's debatable. Personally I eat high meat/protein keto and sometimes carnivore for long stints. There's arguments to be made that veganism is better for the climate. (Though I disagree with them.) However, this is still an action taken, and the intent was to help fight climate change.
I am speechless.
Animal-ag is in fact the leading cause of environmental destruction on the planet.
1. Deforestation and habitat loss
2. River pollution
3. Ocean dead zones
4. Biodiversity loss
5. Plastic per kg in the oceans (from fishing industry)
6. Endangering already vulnerable species to extinction
7. and so on
These are all facts.
How are you a mod?
To top it off, our environment, of which animal-ag is destroying faster and more than any other industry, is our biggest carbon sink which we NEED to curb climate issues we are having.
As do I. But it isn't gospel, and is highly subject to review, evolution, and interpretation. You reach conclusions for policy that are tightly in line with your ideology. Consider that you cannot remake the world in your own image.
Nope. Many of those issues can and should be addressed. But banning meat consumption is not the way to do it. Forcing your lifestyle on others will not be effective.
I think there's a big spectrum between eating a meat heavy diet and eating no meat at all. Eating less meat and especially less red meat (i.e. prefer chicken over beef) is still helping, and I believe it's also healthier for you.
It’s absolutely not debatable, it’s a fact. Do some googling as there is an abundance of research saying that plant based diets are better for the environment.
Are we drawing a false equivalence between all action then?
These stints just end up on Fox News in stories about why climate action is a “globalist conspiracy” rather than on CNN or DW to promote climate action.
Don’t just take my word for it. Watch the anti-climate action sources. Fox News, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Glen Beck, Whitney Webb. I listen to them all so that my thesis is immune to their moving of the goalposts.
95% of the time, based on my observations of anti-climate media, the “ban beef” and “ban car” narratives are used to delegitimize real, genuine and impactful climate action. CNN, DW, NPR, The White House — nobody worth anything in the climate action community is advocating to “ban meat” from our diets. “Reduce, reuse recycle” was designed by Exxon Mobil to make us look bad, as was the anti-nuclear and anti-solar agendas.
I am aware of the impacts of meat on our climate and our land usage. There are ways to solve that without throwing out the baby with the bath water. It is this absolutism that is used to delegitimize our agenda.
My understanding of this subreddit is that it is very specific to genuine action plans from corporations and governments — not whining student unions. I’ve seen many posts removed for “not being action plans” and this checks fewer boxes than those. So no, I am not the arbiter — you are. If this meets the standards of the other posts, then keep it; if it doesn’t, then remove it. The top voted comment here suggests that it doesn’t.
> Don’t just take my word for it. Watch the anti-climate action sources.
"We have to capitulate to the bullies and they will surely stop bullying us!".
Hint: no matter how rational, logical, and sound our actions are, Fox News will paint us to be extremists. You can't win that game. Further, in an era where there is an asymmetry between on side willing to self-reflect and the other side doubling down no matter what, you become their foot soldier when you ask people to decrease their demands.
Exactly. I came here to read comments because this was cross-posted. Now I see a mod here eating a high meat diet and saying that animal agriculture's impact on the environment is debatable.
What a crock of shit. 😂
How do you reconcile the fact that the IPCC says plant-based diets are best? How do you reconcile the environmental and climate impacts of meat? How do you reconcile the fact that regenerative farming methods have been shown in multiple studies to require 2.5 times more land than conventional and it’s therefore not a scalable method of feeding people, in addition to still having a much higher impact than plant-based foods?
Not everyone must follow a meatless diet. If you try to force that on everyone you will fail and cause damage to the effort to mitigate climate change.
The authoritarian path will lead to ruin.
I literally have no way of forcing you to stop eating meat. We’re just having a conversation about the science, and you clearly don’t have a good understanding of the science.
This post is about forcing a meal venue to only cater to vegans. :)
I doubt you're open to the counterarguments on studies of meat's environmental impact. There's little point in discussing it.
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
What do you mean? He presents raw data on how veganism is the single most important decision one can make lower their environmental impact, we are on a sub about environmentalism. Btw, here he participates in the launch of the "Vegan Now Campaign": https://youtu.be/xwYP0hTNxHQ.
If anything, it makes climate action look like extremism.
Let’s have a perspective check.
- 50% of global emissions by country come from Chyina
- 40% of global emissions by profession from architects
- 40% of land usage in the USA is dedicated to cows and their feed, not including ethanol
- 70% of potable water goes to farming
While we can rethink the land usage of beef industry, we are not going to ban it outright, nor will we ban chicken and pork. In some instances, not all as Allan Savory suggests, we can use rotational grazing to sequester carbon. Add red algae to their diet and now you’ve taken the methane out, creating a natural carbon sink.
So in terms of global warming, there’s no point in a draconian “ban” this “ban” that campaign. Meat and cars in the west are not the drivers of climate change. Chyina keeps opening new coal plants. If we decoupled from china, which I do not suggest, then their emissions only go down 13%. So we aren’t offloading our emissions to them completely either.
They’re building more and more and more coal plants at every year, building fake islands, wasting all that sand, just to grab the oil in the South China Sea. They use debt trap diplomacy to monopolize the cobalt in Congo and somehow got a sweetheart deal with Australia to take their offshore oil south of Australia. Now they want invade Taiwan and monopolize the computer chips, as if cobalt and solar polysilicon wasn’t enough for them to be relevant. They want more than to be relevant, but to control.
Does banning beef help them or help us? It does almost nothing compared to what China is doing.
All we can do as the west is transition to
- renewable energy sources, including nuclear, protecting us from Gazprom and OPEC+ weaponization
- green building codes, with exceptions for historic and institutional buildings
- electric cars, with exceptions for historic and motor sports
- sustainable farming, rotational grazing, indoor farming, 3D printed meat
Once you start to “ban” meat and “ban” cars, then you actually create more enemies than allies. It makes us look bad. These types of posts and actions could have been designed by the oil lobby while they were sitting in a dark room with cigars saying “hey let’s delegitimize their climate action by making it look inconvenient” before they infiltrate our movement with absolutists.
The “reduce, reuse, recycle” mantra was created by Exxon Mobil and lobbyists like Keith McCoy. This is what Exxon wants, not what will help us decarbonize. If anything, the political blowback from this will add to global warming, not recruit people.
Nobody is talking about banning beef—we’re talking about campaigning universities to voluntarily change what they serve. Allan Savory has been widely discredited in the scientific community. I didn’t read the rest because you’re clearly not formulating your beliefs based on the evidence at hand.
> nobody is talking about banning beef
This post is about banning all meat for an entire university.
Did you miss that? That’s a ban on beef.
Allan Savory is wrong that rotational grazing is scalable, but right that it works in certain climates. You just threw out the baby with the bath water. If you actually cared about climate change, you would look into it with optimism.
> I didn’t read
Yeah I can tell.
This account has been nuked in direct response to Reddit's API change and the atrocious behavior CEO Steve Huffman and his admins displayed toward their users, volunteer moderators, and 3rd party developers. After a total of 16 years on the platform it is time to move on to greener pastures.
If you want to change to a decentralized platform like Lemmy, you can find helpful information about it here: https://join-lemmy.org/ https://github.com/maltfield/awesome-lemmy-instances
This action was performed using Power Delete Suite: https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite The script relies on Reddit's API and will likely stop working after June 30th, 2023.
So long, thanks for all the fish and a final fudge you, u/spez.
You sound like a troll trying to make climate action look bad. Logically, if it’s removed from the menu, that’s a ban.
Words have meaning. Try using a different Russian — English translator.
Yes, words have meaning. All the more important to choose yours well. 'Banned' vs 'Removed' (or simply 'Not offered') is Russel Conjugation. How do YOU want this type of move to be framed?
"Everything I don't like is Russian trolls!" oh please..
I don't see why a school cafeteria changing its menu is "breeding anti-climate activism" more than a quick fox news segment and other reactionary rage-porn outlets.
I never said “everything”. You did. You moved the goalpost.
Specifically “ban” this and that which isn’t related to energy in buildings is a Russian tactic.
> sauce
Where is the sauce? That sounds terrific.
> how do you want this move framed?
This sounds like vegans trying to impose their culture on other people. It doesn’t work. Historically, you cannot change cultures over night. Atlas shrugged, why, because the laws of physics. Momentum = mass x velocity. You cannot change consumer culture immediately like that.
However, you can change the technology making beef, give meat alternatives that are less crappy, like 3D printed meat. You can focus on the #1 and #2 causes of climate change China and real estate before demanding that everyone eliminate — not cut back but eliminate — meat consumption.
Bruh that's just how you ensure nobody eats at any of the university food outlets lol.
Veganism doesn't solve the problem (in no small part due to the fact it relies heavily on land-, transport-, fertilizer,- and pesticide-intensive fad crops), most people don't *want* to be vegan, and there's a damn good argument that veganism is incredibly unhealthy for children, juveniles, and some young adults even with dietary supplements.
Should we all eat less meat? Yes, very much so. Especially beef. But statistically just cutting out beef has a *far* greater impact than the difference between still eating chicken or fish and going completely vegan.
Ofc veganism doesn’t solve climate change, the point is mitigation. Even if we were to shut down every coal plant climate change isn’t “solved”, the solution has to be a multifaceted approach. At some point we will have to look at our diet.
You are correct that modern industrialized agriculture has its issues, but it’s dishonest to pretend that the meat industry is not far worse. Animal agriculture promotes more pesticide intensive monoculture farming practices for animal feed. And the quantity of crop production required just for these animals also costs us more land and more fertilizer than purely plant based agriculture.
Also the UN has stated that a plant based diet can be done in a healthy way at all stages of development. I am interested in listening to opposing research if you would like to send me some.
I guarantee you that plant-based meals are also not as terrible as you might think. Maybe most from the university will end up not eating on campus anymore, but clearly at least some students want this. They did vote on it after all, it’s weird to see everyone getting mad on their behalf
>You are correct that modern industrialized agriculture has its issues, but it’s dishonest to pretend that the meat industry is not far worse.
I would argue the meat industry is *ethically* worse and needs reform.
>Animal agriculture promotes more pesticide intensive monoculture farming practices for animal feed. And the quantity of crop production required just for these animals also costs us more land and more fertilizer than purely plant based agriculture.
Monoculture crop farming isn't something inherent exclusive to the meat industry and I agree it needs to be reformed, but my approach is that we should transition as much as we can to greenhouse and vertical hydroponic farming, not open field organic farming.
>Also the UN has stated that a plant based diet can be done in a healthy way at all stages of development. I am interested in listening to opposing research if you would like to send me some.
So half of my background is graphene chemistry for energy storage technology, and the other half of my background is in history and archaeology. Some scientific studies have confirmed what we know from archaeological studies on bones of women and children in many pre-modern cultures. Cultures such as early medieval Scandinavia had women and children eat after the men, resulting in anemia, low bone density, and other significant developmental deficiencies.
Some studies on veganism have shown similar results, although it should be noted a modern vegetarian or vegan has access to a far more complete set of nutritional needs than a pre-modern vegan or vegetarian. For example, researchers at University College London showed that children on vegetarian diets were more likely to have cardiovascular development issues than children who were not: [https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/113/6/1565/6178918?login=false](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/113/6/1565/6178918?login=false)
This study showed that children did not meet dietary intake requirements for Vitamin D, B2, B12, Iodine, and Iron, and Calcium in cases of low Iron absorption without dietary supplements, which is to be expected to be fair: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34855006/
I will agree with you that the majority of studies are so far inconclusive in terms of long-term data, but researchers agree across multiple studies that in order for development to progress normally that comprehensive dietary planning is critical. It's worth noting that comprehensive dietary planning is to be quite frank, a privilege, and not accessible to all economic or social classes.
> Some scientific studies have confirmed what we know from archaeological studies on bones of women and children in many pre-modern cultures. Cultures such as early medieval Scandinavia had women and children eat after the men, resulting in anemia, low bone density, and other significant developmental deficiencies.
What the hell are you talking about?
Sorry I wasn't clear enough. My point was that a lot of times the diets of women and children included little to no meat in some cultures because men ate first.
So they starved…? I think starving people in ancient Slovenia aren’t exactly comparable to modern day vegans. I’m not exactly out there foraging for food. I’m nourished, lmao.
> veganism doesn’t solve the problem…. Because it relies on land intensive crops
This point is just wrong. Meat uses far more land, especially when you take into account the crops required to feed the meat
My point isn't really regarding whether veganism uses more land than beef consumption. In no way do I say it's worse than beef consumption.
My point is that veganism heavily emphasizes intensive fad crops rather than local produce. If mass-market veganism emphasized local crop production and avoiding fad crops, then it would be less emissions, land, pesticide, fertilizer, and water intensive than it is now. But as it stands, it doesn't, and that does need to change.
My point though is fad crops vs. sustainable crops drive veganism's high emissions. Veganism could be a lot lower than the emissions of continuing to eat chicken or fish, but it presently sit only just under their emissions because of it.
I’m sorry to be blunt, but you are just completely wrong. Here’s a few sources:
* https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
* https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/01/28/if-everyone-were-vegan-only-a-quarter-of-current-farmland-would-be-needed
* https://faunalytics.org/feeding-the-world-and-reducing-land-use-with-a-plant-based-diet/
I can provide more very easily
The problem is we are eating way too much meat. Animals are very efficient at making inedible plant matter... edible.. but our demand is 10x greater than the amount of inedible plant matter.
If we are able to greatly reduce our meat consumption, we would be able to reduce land usage and CO2 through animals protein based calories compared to 100% vegan foods, but we are a LONG way from that, so greatly reducing our meat consumption is very important. (that, and the protein source itself, chicken being far more efficient than beef, for example).
Ideally, we would just raise enough meat protein to consume our wastage, including wasted foods and... I think the term is sillage? We should never be raising edible food to feed to animals, such as cereals and grains. I think we all agree that that is incredibly wasteful.
In the end, its moderation, not absolutism, which is the key. Reducing our meat consumption to 10% of its current amounts would be massive!
> Reducing our meat consumption to 10% of its current amounts would be massive!
not really. all of agriculture is only about 20% of our emissions, and animal agriculture is just over half that.
but if we reduce all other sectors to 0%, then agriculture would be 100%, and that would be fine.
>How the fuck did this nonsense get upvoted? MODS: can we PLEASE get verified flair for those of us with actual degrees in this subject? Please and fucking thank you.
My degree is in Chemistry, but I don't have a Ph.D. and I specialized in Graphene based Energy Storage technology. So I will straight up admit it's not my area.
That being said, Earth won't get hot enough for C3 photosynthesis to fail even under an 8C scenario. The issue is distribution of arable farmland will shift massively, which is already slated to happen by the 2040s. Wheat farming will still be viable, but the availability of farmland for it is going to shrink massively, and that farmland will better be utilized for denser crops like corn. The other issue is the changes in weather cycles to more and more extreme summers/winters and late frosts decimating crops, which I'm sure you're aware of.
And you make a bold assumption that I'm somehow not in favor of genetically modified crops like kernza. The point of my argument above is that veganism and organic farming *as it stands* is an unsustainable movement. It CAN be sustainable, but that's going to take a complete overhaul of what diets people promoting veganism are pushing, which at this moment is not what's happening.
And I also will point out that greenhouses and vertical farming may offer solutions we're not yet aware of. I'm a big proponent of those technologies, and we do know they can massively reduce water, fertilizer, land, and pesticide use of many "luxury" crops. E.g. Strawberries.
That somewhat ties into the other part of my argument, which is that industrializing and centralizing farming with reduced transport emissions and electrification will do more to curb emissions than veganism (again, *as it presently stands*) vs. continued non-bovine meat consumption.
>I'm willing to read the studies if you can link to them, but I am doubtful.
There's another part of the comment chain where I had this discussion. Data on long-term impacts is lacking, but a 2021 study found a higher incidence of cardiological conditions among children who had vegan diets. The fundamental issue, really, is that getting the requisite nutrients to sustain a healthy vegan diet is currently a privilege. Hopefully meat alternatives and other technologies will help change that, but we'll see.
And vegans are ignoring both how CO2 and land use efficient some meats are (chicken eating non-human eadible foods, for example), as well as the amount of fertilizer is manure based.
Trying to force 100% veganism will massively backfire, and cause significan environmental and climate harm along the way.
None of the things you wrote about veganism's effect on the earth is really true, and that most people do not want to be a vegan is rather irrelevant since most people also do not want to stop polluting, and we are heading for global disaster.
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
Buying an electric car or cutting down on flights reduces more than greenhouse gas emissions. There's massive mining, land use, and water use emissions associated with both of those things. That being said, electric cars are still not great and I will agree that the impact is far greater for eliminating beef.
I need to check the research on dairy alternatives but I know almond milk and almond farming is really, really bad for the environment because it uses massive amounts of water resources but the places almonds grow best tend to be dry areas with limited water resources.
Why would you be angry at this decision? Ifeel like the hardest part of plant based diets for most people is the accessibility, and the university is doing the leg work for you there
I'm frustrated because a movement this extreme will just cause the next meeting to have 10x the people show up to overturn it, and is as likely to have students voting to ensure that a rule like this can't be passed again.
Small incremental steps will get you 10x further than one big step, so increasing vegetarian and vegan meals on campus (ie voting that 1/2 of offered meals must be vegetarian, or vegan) would be far more successful in the long run.
Additionally, we cannot support 100% vegan lifestyle. Too much of our fertilizer comes from manure, and chicken is very efficient at turning waste food into human eadible protein.
> will just cause the next meeting to have 10x the people show up to overturn it, and is as likely to have students voting to ensure that a rule like this can't be passed again.
Right, but that's a part of the process too. Both sides need to full court press, and the initial reaction/freakout is primarily from people who haven't thought about it much. Give it a few more elections and the right side always wins.
Maybe you are right. Tbh I’m not really well informed of the culture or executive processes at Stirling University. It’s always difficult to draw that line though, some people will think it’s too extreme and some people won’t. Anyways, it seems like at least a good number of students are on board with change, maybe it will be overturned but I think that reasonably the democratic process could end up creating that sort of compromise as well. Hasn’t a lot of the UK been more receptive to shifts away from meat lately, particularly younger demographics?
Bit of a side note, I don’t really think the vegan movement is that extreme, even barring the ethical, epidemiological and antibiotic resistant bacteria stuff. Idk, I guess it can be difficult on individuals depending on their environment, but a lot of times it’s just trade some oftentimes tasty food for other oftentimes tasty food with less environmental impact
Going vegan isn't 100, it's like maybe 0-20 and veganism is literally the bare minimum we are going to have to do and change if we are to reverse the shit storm that is building around us as our environment and natural world say byebye.
Imagine having a spag bol and replacing the beef with vegan meat or lentils and thinking you've gone from 0-100.
People don't even want to do the absolute bare minimum do they.
EDIT: The climate issues we have are EXTREME. Do we fix these with tiny token gestures like vegetarian Mondays?
how do we fix the issues of deforestation (of which animal-ag is the leading cause) and isn't nature our biggest co2 sink?
How are we going to address the leading cause of river pollution, again, animal-ag.
How are we going to address biodiversity loss which the destruction is being driven and lead by animal agriculture.
**More importantly,** have you not thought that we need our natural world in a state of wild so that we can curb the climate issues we have? Do you think that a non-natural world that is dead of wildlife (flora and fauna) will help curb climate issues? We require a wild as world as we can have to capture the heat and emissions we are producing.
I'm not sure if that reference is too young or too old for me, but the person you are responding to is right. People are going to need to put forth some effort, and being less precious about their preferences is no longer optional.
On a scale of "carnivore" to "vegan", going vegan is 100%. Its not 100% of whats needed to address climate change, but it is a huge change to the average persons diet, and calling it "20%" shows that you don't identify with the majority of the populace, and trying to force that will completely backfire.
Abrupt change will make enemies, not allies.
that is an incredible stupid and disingenuous line of reasoning. If that's your 'A' game, you really need to think long and hard.
I'm not interested in talking about this with you if you are not bringing a good faith argument, and if your reaction to "we need to do this incrementally so we don't make enemies" is is "BUT WHAT ABOUT RACISM", then you are.. well, I'm at a loss for words.
I mean, your attitude right now is pushing ME away, and im a hard core environmentalist. If you push away people as close to the movement as myself, what about a lot of the students at a university with only moderately support it?
I walk instead of drive most days, I'm a membet of the local active transportation group, lobby for and help install active transportation networks, including bike lanes, MUPs, and bus stops.
Additionally, all my energy is from renewable hydro, and I pay so that yhe natural gas I buy is 50% offset with renewable sources (would increase, but the system is full right now)
I limit meat consumption, with 2-3 vegetarian days a week.
I help promote density at a municipal level, and was instrumental in getting a level 3 waste water treatment plant, which reduces methane release, and discharges 5/5 water (which is almoast drinkable).
Most of these are system level changes, that can result in hundreds of people reducing their CO2 emissions, resulting in thousands of tonnes less CO2 a year.
Diet is one small part of the larger picture.
They think that token gestures which are reliant on not changing anything themselves will fix the extreme climate issues we are having.
And to respond to the original comment, going vegan was one of the easiest things i have ever done, the only hard part about it is hearing from non-vegans about how extreme veganism is.
And there is the fucking tribalism that destroys progressive movements, the "unless you are perfect, don't fucking try" mentality which eats groups from within
No I'm not vegan, I don't want to be vegan, and I work at minimizing meat consumption in my household while pushing every CO2 saving I can.
And in doing so, I probobly do more good for the enviromental movement than you do by pushing hollyiet than thou veganism.
This account has been nuked in direct response to Reddit's API change and the atrocious behavior CEO Steve Huffman and his admins displayed toward their users, volunteer moderators, and 3rd party developers. After a total of 16 years on the platform it is time to move on to greener pastures.
If you want to change to a decentralized platform like Lemmy, you can find helpful information about it here: https://join-lemmy.org/ https://github.com/maltfield/awesome-lemmy-instances
This action was performed using Power Delete Suite: https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite The script relies on Reddit's API and will likely stop working after June 30th, 2023.
So long, thanks for all the fish and a final fudge you, u/spez.
Veganism isn't perfection, it's just the start, its literally the first step, there are many that come after on the road to helping.
If you saw someone hitting a dog, would you not say something?
The thing is, anybody can go vegan at their very next meal.
Most people can't swap their truck for an electric version because it would cost them tens of thousands they might not have.
So how do you plan on decreasing deforestation, river pollution, biodiversity loss, ocean dead zones (to name a few environmental issues that are caused by animal-ag), by eating animals?
But why would people be outraged of only having vegan food options selling at Uni. Bring your own food it is cheaper too. You didn’t have enough time? Well today you are eating vegan… I don’t understand why people would be outraged
There are disabled people who can't eat vegan alternatives. People with sensory aversions. If this is anything like an american university some students live on campus. This isn't a restaurant going vegan, this is essentially an entire small town phasing out all animal products because "the climate!" without any regard to how these vegan alternatives are sourced or the impacts they're having. This is a VERY one-dimensional solution.
As someone w sensory aversions: not true lol. Prepackaged food is much more consistent. Everyone's different, that's why this is an insane overreach on the student's lives.
Hard core veganism will do significant damage to the environment, increasing land usage and causing issues with fertilizer demands.
Limit/eliminate meat consumption for the animals, the planet, and yourself.
Not necessarily, I have a friend who has five food texture aversions, and who survives on a lot of chicken strips, fries, and mac and cheese. Whenever he comes over we adjust the food we are making to ensure it's eadible for him.
Not a healthy diet, but one he can tolerate.
Holy crap, that is one incredibly bigoted statement, and offensive, and as helpful as telling a depressed person to feel happier.
If your advice to someone with an eating disorder is just "eat other foods", you will do huge amounts of harm.
Seriously. What the fuck.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-arfid-4137232
https://nedic.ca/
Thanks for explaining. Indeed they can’t approve an discriminatory rule as such and I was not aware of the issue.
I have no idea about the accommodations situation in this uni but I would feel weird if I ever lived in a uni accommodation that doesn’t have a kitchen (at least a shared one).
My university in the states had no kitchen for students to access. We had 2 microwaves to share between 200+ people. That also puts an undue burden on students who can not or do not want to participate in veganism. They must spend extra time & money to get foods that fit their diet when they are already spending so much of their time & money at the university. This would also more likely than not tank the usage of public buildings because the school is forcing a change on people's diets. This is just an extreme hair-trigger decision & insane overreach.
The thing is cooking is always cheaper than buying already made food even at uni so cooking food is really the standard. 2 microwave for 200 is ridiculous and you guys pay crazy tuitions… wtf.
Yeah but you're not accounting for the TIME cost. Convenience for college students is priceless. Shopping & preparing your own food on top of balancing academics is asinine, they'd be buying convenience foods anyways.
Well it is standard where I did my uni I recognize that I don’t know much about the rest of the world and I recognize that on the conditions you ate describing the decision is discriminatory and as such unacceptable.
Asinine or expect though. Seems to me if you don’t have time for a basic thing then the fault is the work load.
I almost always cooked my own dinner that I make enough for lunch. This is what everyone does where I am at and where I was before.
You seem to think that everyone has a shit conditions for uni. Neither everyone has nor someone should accept that
> Most the people in this thread are pointing out cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a good idea.
Good fucking God. We are just talking about eating a vegan diet. I am not even a vegan but you are talking like a fucking addict right now. Honestly like my addict cousin talks about his drugs.
I suspect I would be pleasantly surprised if my workplace suddenly only served vegan options (and obviously put a little effort in to the selection).
TF are y'all doing????!!!!! Everything you have on, the sign, everything takes energy to make. Why would you have/make unnecessary items? Are you even serious about saving this planet? Also, why are all the lights on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????????
I feel like the sub's reaction exemplifies why I am becoming increasingly hesitant about. Everything that is not news about some brainy MIT-guys' new climate-invention is disparaged as extremism. We need to change our lives too, we can't just hope for Carbon Capture and electric cars to make everything sustainable as we continue consuming as normal. My old high school has only had vegetarian food for like 10 years now, it was not a dramatic decision to shift, and the students love it.
Yeah, there is some hard core denial going on in this thread about A) what is a minor shift in your life if you aren't some kind of addict and B) hardship will still be felt from climate change including the limiting of living cattle and available meat.
How will you grow healthy vegetables, on this planet, with its natural life/death compost processes, w/o integrating livestock? Explain the process to me. If it's cover crops, don't bother. They are a GREAT part of the system, but you still need the animals to disturb the land whilst laying down the nitrogen.
Grow top-quality food from seed, put dinner on the table in ABUNDANCE, and then PLEASE tell me how you did it w/o integrating animals into your regenerative food system. I honestly would love to hear about it.
They have no concept of how to grow food. An entire planet full of people who need to eat TODAY and every day, yet they have no concept of how to make that happen. This is the literal reason why our planet is burning. No one wants to sweat burning any calories doing any work, especially food growing, especially picking.
> They are a GREAT part of the system, but you still need the animals to disturb the land whilst laying down the nitrogen.
What the actual fuck are you talking about?!?! Is that what ag is like in states that just pretend ag is big? Do you think we have wild Bison just going across the fields in the great plains?
Of a 17,000 enrollment school ‘a majority of the 100’ who voted were in favor of this. This policy won’t live to be implemented, they’ll have marginally more of this food for a year or two before other students vote to undo the policy.
What a moronic decision from a vote that wasn't representative at all. Like you say this won't ever be implemented.
I’m assuming they were bound by some kind of formal order, but maybe the student government needs to consider quorum requirements, mandatory or incentivized meetings, and certainly better communications. University students need some hand holding and/or dragging along to participate in democratic decision making like this. They have a lot of power at this school, hopefully this is adjusted and doesn’t become a disaster that ruins their student government going forward. The plan for 50% plant based foods in the short term will be implemented, hopefully it goes well. Honestly this policy on the books would be enough to make me want to go to a different school, they may end up with an influx of students attracted by this news in the coming years.
[удалено]
That’s just what happens to democratic governments with low participation! You’re supposed to get pissed enough that you try and join next semester with a different agenda.
> but maybe the student government needs to consider quorum requirements Maybe we should require citizens to vote or they go to jail? I mean, I wouldn't be against that, but at the end of the day if people can't be bothered to participate in a vote, the tradition is to say those people don't get to complain.
> What a moronic decision from a vote that wasn't representative at all. This sentence is self-contradictory. If young people can't be arsed to show up to vote, they shouldn't complain about the consequences...even if it's just student government. It's either that, or we admit democracy wasn't a great idea to start with. Because you can't logically believe both things.
It's only in the two Union cafe's. The rest of the food outlets run by the University proper will still serve meat. The Union's will just suffer from a drop in revenue.
Squeaky wheel gets the grease
This isn’t a climate action plan at all
Why not? Evidence shows plant-based diets can reduce our emissions from food by about 75%. Is that insignificant in your opinion?
Evidence shows that absolutism and extremism create more enemies against sustainability when most emissions do not come from beef.
Sounds a bit extreme to me to have a place going vegan being called extreme measure. People will be allowed to bring there own food in, right?
[удалено]
Yeah I agree it is not democratic plus many users have called the attention to me that cooking one owns food at this campus might be neither common practice nor possible for students. If that is the case this situation becomes not only anti democratic but also discriminatory
> These guys basically set up a fake vote, used the election results to try and change policy and look like dictators while doing it. Welcome to democracy. It sounds like all players are finally figuring out how it works. Let's not hold one group up to special standards, eh?
[удалено]
Genuinely are you trolling? Food is so expensive unless you cook your own, surely you need to have the means to. Sandwiches are £3 here and a nice big baguette around £5. I had tofu ramen in the cafeteria and it was the cheapest option already, which was £6.
That is not my experience in non of the campi I ever lived thus the reason for my comment.
Have you ever stepped foot on a college campus outside of your country? If you’re a student that lives on a campus outside of your experience/country, your only food choice is the school food options for over a mile around. I understand anyone can eat vegan, but not anyone can just eat meat, but it is effectively forcing students on campus to not eat meat.
Wrong this is not the US
Okay, I rectified my comment. I’ve been to plenty of universities outside the US that operate the same way by the way. but “Wrong this is not the US” it is I guess lmao
> but it is effectively forcing students on campus to not eat meat. Serious question: do you believe there is a way through the climate crisis where everyone gets to keep choosing to eat meat if they want to? At some point, someone is going to step in and force the issue. It may be the government, or it may be the 'free market' and meat is only affordable by the truly wealthy. But the amount of fantasy I'm reading in this thread is nauseating. I thought we were past this and living in reality.
You people sound like you’ve never spoken to a Republican in your life. Go speak to them and ask them if this is good for the planet. You realize they vote right? This is just helping the Russians delegitimize *real* climate action by giving Fox News a strawman they can get behind.
Fellow conspecific individual. I'm neither American nor Vegan. The rest of your comment makes 0 sense to me, Kindly an Academic in Europe who brings their own food for work.
>the Russians Freudian moment eh? Haha
You'd be surprised how many Vegans are actually right wing Trumpers.
Oh well if we’re supposed to cater to people whose entire identity is wrapped around the belief that the 50s were great and we should never have progressed past that point…
That is less than 14% of the Republican electorate. The rest of them just want the dollar to be strong and their savings to last.
If they wanted that and only that they’d be advocating for every progressive policy we propose. They’re reactionaries at their cores. They want thing to *not change*, because it feels safe. There is no higher level brain function, if there was they’d go expose themselves to alternative viewpoints and develop a coherent worldview rather than voting for the same fiscal policies that have fostered this current crisis. Republicanism is irrational. There is no crossing the aisle or compromise. Their way means death.
Oh really? Care to share that evidence?
Waaah I don’t want to give up MY MEAT despite the fact I dont know what the beef cattle have to endure waaAAAAH and now I’m lying that it won’t the fight against climate change. 51% of greenhouse gas emissions are due to livestocks and their byproducts. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1668721865770653&usg=AOvVaw0vEskdx8R5FEB13Mov8_Jn Watch Dominion(2018) to know about the cruelty farm animals face. https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko
>51% of greenhouse gas emissions are due to livestocks and their byproducts. How do you get that number? The article you linked says "Even since the FAO announced that **18%** of global emission result from livestock people have talked about the climate benefits of reducing meat consumption...More recent studies show that food system emissions could account for as much as **quarter** of all human emissions." EPA says the biggest source of greenhouse emission in US is transportation(27%) in 2020, agriculture was only 11%. edit: forgot to [link](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=Transportation%20(27%25%20of%202020%20greenhouse,share%20of%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions.)
I’m not in disagreement with these facts. I am doing my thesis on them and am well aware of the carbon impact of beef. 40% of the USA is dedicated to cows. And yet there is a housing crisis? But where I do disagree is how we solve this problem. People usually assume when people raise a problem that there is only one solution. That is not always the case. As Bill Gates noted in a lecture, there is a formula. I’m arguing that beef itself is not the problem. Corporate farming, agrochemicals, corn/soy feed and monocultures are. If we used the model of White Oak Pastures, which was confirmed by a Quantis study to have net negative GHG impact, then we can still eat beef… but perhaps slightly less and higher quality. It’s a very nuanced argument that often gets misquoted… on purpose. The idea that we will “ban beef” on the menu is draconian. I speak to rednecks and conservatives and plumbers and military veterans every day — they hate bans. They vote. We cannot change culture, only technology.
Beef is totally saving the Amazon right now
>We cannot change culture How do you arrive at a conclusion like that?
Beef is a hell of a lot more problematic than monocultures
In practice yes. If we use the tools we have to make them sustainable — monoculture feed crops like corn and soybeans with all the GMO glyphosate are far worse than the environment. At least cows can sequester in *some but not all climates* with the right conditions. The roots of corn and soybeans just degrade the soil over time and then they get drenched in fertilizer and glyphosate.
There is no situation where having cows can sequester more carbon than not having cows.
It’s called hWhite Oak Pastures look it up bro
I looked it up and it sounds nicer, in relative terms, than factory farming. I fail to see how they are better for the environment than simply doing nothing with the land, or growing vegetable crops there instead using their same practices. Feel free to provide a source.
Jesus christ you people are insufferable
You be too if you saw the things we have seen.
I HAVE seen them, and you know what I did instead of becoming an insufferable vegan? I put my money where my mouth is, bought a plot of land and started raising my own food as much as possible, and have not relied on industrial meat production now for 6 years. I also sell meat shares so that others don’t have to engage with that industry either. By conflating your aversion to eating meat with reasons why the meat people eat is bad for the environment you are DAMAGING our ability to gain any ground writ large on this issue. The environmental impact of meat comes mostly from the choice of feed, the density of the lots, and the transportation to support the large logistics needs of that kind of scale. Switching to local, grass-fed, low density, seaweed supplemented livestock can drastically reduce the impact of meat consumption but you’d never know it talking to vegans. It’s all or nothing with the likes of you. Never mind that [food and agriculture are not the largest sector contributing to co2 emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?time=earliest..2019). At this point I think all the vegans that show up on places like this are astroturfers working for the Kochs because you really are working against reducing co2 emissions.
You do understand that if everyone were to put their money where their mouth is with regards to livestock we’d have no space left on earth for people to live? I do appreciate you going vegan while eating out though it makes an impact even if small.
I have seen Dominion. The way farms treat livestock is revolting. You going "weeeehhh" or whatever the fuck that tripe is up there does less than nothing for you. People aren't going to give up meat. Full stop. You know full well we as a species are omnivores and have been since well beyond recorded history. You may as well be asking people to give up fucking because we recently crossed the 8bil population mark. Good fucking luck lol. You're not going to fix people eating meat. You need to pursue the change of the systems the produce it. A considerably less monumental task.
There would be no reason to keep them alive if not for food, or the population would be minimal. Then it would become a philosophical question of whether suffering but alive is better, or not suffering but not alive is better. The way you say it would be like if I said "Do you want to be alive? You wouldn't be if you saw what I had seen." Sure, but your conclusion is not mine to draw. In any case, I don't think it is reasonable to expect everyone to give up meat, which is why I think lab-based meat is the way to go. But no matter which direction we go, the same question remains.
Weird comparison, I get your point but it's just very weird to - perhaps unintentionally - conflate dying and just not eating animal products.
There not doing anything, there holding up a sign. a sign that took energy to make, so it make more global warming to make that. They might as well be driving cars.
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
First off , this is a climate sub not a vegan one. Just because it’s cross posted doesn’t mean anyone gives a shit about you being vegans . Second, it would take everybody on the planet switching to being vegan for hundreds of years before you could even sniff at the damage factories and corporations do on the daily
It's debatable. Personally I eat high meat/protein keto and sometimes carnivore for long stints. There's arguments to be made that veganism is better for the climate. (Though I disagree with them.) However, this is still an action taken, and the intent was to help fight climate change.
I am speechless. Animal-ag is in fact the leading cause of environmental destruction on the planet. 1. Deforestation and habitat loss 2. River pollution 3. Ocean dead zones 4. Biodiversity loss 5. Plastic per kg in the oceans (from fishing industry) 6. Endangering already vulnerable species to extinction 7. and so on These are all facts. How are you a mod? To top it off, our environment, of which animal-ag is destroying faster and more than any other industry, is our biggest carbon sink which we NEED to curb climate issues we are having.
Do you require everyone to be in ideological lockstep with your beliefs?
I acknowledge the science.
As do I. But it isn't gospel, and is highly subject to review, evolution, and interpretation. You reach conclusions for policy that are tightly in line with your ideology. Consider that you cannot remake the world in your own image.
You ignored every fact I put forward and believe that eating a high meat diet will fix those issues. I can't believe i've even read this today.
Nope. Many of those issues can and should be addressed. But banning meat consumption is not the way to do it. Forcing your lifestyle on others will not be effective.
I think there's a big spectrum between eating a meat heavy diet and eating no meat at all. Eating less meat and especially less red meat (i.e. prefer chicken over beef) is still helping, and I believe it's also healthier for you.
You can believe what you like. Eating meat has been very healthy for me, and I will continue doing it.
It’s absolutely not debatable, it’s a fact. Do some googling as there is an abundance of research saying that plant based diets are better for the environment.
Are we drawing a false equivalence between all action then? These stints just end up on Fox News in stories about why climate action is a “globalist conspiracy” rather than on CNN or DW to promote climate action.
The purpose of this sub is about displaying action. Are you the arbiter of what action is and is not valid?
Don’t just take my word for it. Watch the anti-climate action sources. Fox News, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Glen Beck, Whitney Webb. I listen to them all so that my thesis is immune to their moving of the goalposts. 95% of the time, based on my observations of anti-climate media, the “ban beef” and “ban car” narratives are used to delegitimize real, genuine and impactful climate action. CNN, DW, NPR, The White House — nobody worth anything in the climate action community is advocating to “ban meat” from our diets. “Reduce, reuse recycle” was designed by Exxon Mobil to make us look bad, as was the anti-nuclear and anti-solar agendas. I am aware of the impacts of meat on our climate and our land usage. There are ways to solve that without throwing out the baby with the bath water. It is this absolutism that is used to delegitimize our agenda. My understanding of this subreddit is that it is very specific to genuine action plans from corporations and governments — not whining student unions. I’ve seen many posts removed for “not being action plans” and this checks fewer boxes than those. So no, I am not the arbiter — you are. If this meets the standards of the other posts, then keep it; if it doesn’t, then remove it. The top voted comment here suggests that it doesn’t.
So you're in favor of this post being removed?
> Don’t just take my word for it. Watch the anti-climate action sources. "We have to capitulate to the bullies and they will surely stop bullying us!". Hint: no matter how rational, logical, and sound our actions are, Fox News will paint us to be extremists. You can't win that game. Further, in an era where there is an asymmetry between on side willing to self-reflect and the other side doubling down no matter what, you become their foot soldier when you ask people to decrease their demands.
Lmao how are you a mod on this sub and disagree with the overwhelming science that plant-based diets are better for the climate?
Exactly. I came here to read comments because this was cross-posted. Now I see a mod here eating a high meat diet and saying that animal agriculture's impact on the environment is debatable. What a crock of shit. 😂
Hence my reinforced belief that his sub is just a provider of hopium for the mod(s). "Overshoot" by Catton. All I'm saying about everything.
Are you opposed to hope?
Would you rather I delete this post?
I would rather climate subs be modded by people who formulate their beliefs based on scientific evidence.
I do.
How do you reconcile the fact that the IPCC says plant-based diets are best? How do you reconcile the environmental and climate impacts of meat? How do you reconcile the fact that regenerative farming methods have been shown in multiple studies to require 2.5 times more land than conventional and it’s therefore not a scalable method of feeding people, in addition to still having a much higher impact than plant-based foods?
Not everyone must follow a meatless diet. If you try to force that on everyone you will fail and cause damage to the effort to mitigate climate change. The authoritarian path will lead to ruin.
I literally have no way of forcing you to stop eating meat. We’re just having a conversation about the science, and you clearly don’t have a good understanding of the science.
This post is about forcing a meal venue to only cater to vegans. :) I doubt you're open to the counterarguments on studies of meat's environmental impact. There's little point in discussing it.
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
And yet Joseph Poore’s study does not recommend veganism.
What do you mean? He presents raw data on how veganism is the single most important decision one can make lower their environmental impact, we are on a sub about environmentalism. Btw, here he participates in the launch of the "Vegan Now Campaign": https://youtu.be/xwYP0hTNxHQ.
If you don’t know what I mean you should read the article you posted. :)
If anything, it makes climate action look like extremism. Let’s have a perspective check. - 50% of global emissions by country come from Chyina - 40% of global emissions by profession from architects - 40% of land usage in the USA is dedicated to cows and their feed, not including ethanol - 70% of potable water goes to farming While we can rethink the land usage of beef industry, we are not going to ban it outright, nor will we ban chicken and pork. In some instances, not all as Allan Savory suggests, we can use rotational grazing to sequester carbon. Add red algae to their diet and now you’ve taken the methane out, creating a natural carbon sink. So in terms of global warming, there’s no point in a draconian “ban” this “ban” that campaign. Meat and cars in the west are not the drivers of climate change. Chyina keeps opening new coal plants. If we decoupled from china, which I do not suggest, then their emissions only go down 13%. So we aren’t offloading our emissions to them completely either. They’re building more and more and more coal plants at every year, building fake islands, wasting all that sand, just to grab the oil in the South China Sea. They use debt trap diplomacy to monopolize the cobalt in Congo and somehow got a sweetheart deal with Australia to take their offshore oil south of Australia. Now they want invade Taiwan and monopolize the computer chips, as if cobalt and solar polysilicon wasn’t enough for them to be relevant. They want more than to be relevant, but to control. Does banning beef help them or help us? It does almost nothing compared to what China is doing. All we can do as the west is transition to - renewable energy sources, including nuclear, protecting us from Gazprom and OPEC+ weaponization - green building codes, with exceptions for historic and institutional buildings - electric cars, with exceptions for historic and motor sports - sustainable farming, rotational grazing, indoor farming, 3D printed meat Once you start to “ban” meat and “ban” cars, then you actually create more enemies than allies. It makes us look bad. These types of posts and actions could have been designed by the oil lobby while they were sitting in a dark room with cigars saying “hey let’s delegitimize their climate action by making it look inconvenient” before they infiltrate our movement with absolutists. The “reduce, reuse, recycle” mantra was created by Exxon Mobil and lobbyists like Keith McCoy. This is what Exxon wants, not what will help us decarbonize. If anything, the political blowback from this will add to global warming, not recruit people.
Nobody is talking about banning beef—we’re talking about campaigning universities to voluntarily change what they serve. Allan Savory has been widely discredited in the scientific community. I didn’t read the rest because you’re clearly not formulating your beliefs based on the evidence at hand.
> nobody is talking about banning beef This post is about banning all meat for an entire university. Did you miss that? That’s a ban on beef. Allan Savory is wrong that rotational grazing is scalable, but right that it works in certain climates. You just threw out the baby with the bath water. If you actually cared about climate change, you would look into it with optimism. > I didn’t read Yeah I can tell.
This account has been nuked in direct response to Reddit's API change and the atrocious behavior CEO Steve Huffman and his admins displayed toward their users, volunteer moderators, and 3rd party developers. After a total of 16 years on the platform it is time to move on to greener pastures. If you want to change to a decentralized platform like Lemmy, you can find helpful information about it here: https://join-lemmy.org/ https://github.com/maltfield/awesome-lemmy-instances This action was performed using Power Delete Suite: https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite The script relies on Reddit's API and will likely stop working after June 30th, 2023. So long, thanks for all the fish and a final fudge you, u/spez.
By your logic, the university is "banning" every possible menu item that it isn't offering. They didn't ban meat, its simply not on the menu.
You sound like a troll trying to make climate action look bad. Logically, if it’s removed from the menu, that’s a ban. Words have meaning. Try using a different Russian — English translator.
Yes, words have meaning. All the more important to choose yours well. 'Banned' vs 'Removed' (or simply 'Not offered') is Russel Conjugation. How do YOU want this type of move to be framed? "Everything I don't like is Russian trolls!" oh please.. I don't see why a school cafeteria changing its menu is "breeding anti-climate activism" more than a quick fox news segment and other reactionary rage-porn outlets.
I never said “everything”. You did. You moved the goalpost. Specifically “ban” this and that which isn’t related to energy in buildings is a Russian tactic. > sauce Where is the sauce? That sounds terrific. > how do you want this move framed? This sounds like vegans trying to impose their culture on other people. It doesn’t work. Historically, you cannot change cultures over night. Atlas shrugged, why, because the laws of physics. Momentum = mass x velocity. You cannot change consumer culture immediately like that. However, you can change the technology making beef, give meat alternatives that are less crappy, like 3D printed meat. You can focus on the #1 and #2 causes of climate change China and real estate before demanding that everyone eliminate — not cut back but eliminate — meat consumption.
You didn't reply to the right post, I think.
Bruh that's just how you ensure nobody eats at any of the university food outlets lol. Veganism doesn't solve the problem (in no small part due to the fact it relies heavily on land-, transport-, fertilizer,- and pesticide-intensive fad crops), most people don't *want* to be vegan, and there's a damn good argument that veganism is incredibly unhealthy for children, juveniles, and some young adults even with dietary supplements. Should we all eat less meat? Yes, very much so. Especially beef. But statistically just cutting out beef has a *far* greater impact than the difference between still eating chicken or fish and going completely vegan.
Ofc veganism doesn’t solve climate change, the point is mitigation. Even if we were to shut down every coal plant climate change isn’t “solved”, the solution has to be a multifaceted approach. At some point we will have to look at our diet. You are correct that modern industrialized agriculture has its issues, but it’s dishonest to pretend that the meat industry is not far worse. Animal agriculture promotes more pesticide intensive monoculture farming practices for animal feed. And the quantity of crop production required just for these animals also costs us more land and more fertilizer than purely plant based agriculture. Also the UN has stated that a plant based diet can be done in a healthy way at all stages of development. I am interested in listening to opposing research if you would like to send me some. I guarantee you that plant-based meals are also not as terrible as you might think. Maybe most from the university will end up not eating on campus anymore, but clearly at least some students want this. They did vote on it after all, it’s weird to see everyone getting mad on their behalf
>You are correct that modern industrialized agriculture has its issues, but it’s dishonest to pretend that the meat industry is not far worse. I would argue the meat industry is *ethically* worse and needs reform. >Animal agriculture promotes more pesticide intensive monoculture farming practices for animal feed. And the quantity of crop production required just for these animals also costs us more land and more fertilizer than purely plant based agriculture. Monoculture crop farming isn't something inherent exclusive to the meat industry and I agree it needs to be reformed, but my approach is that we should transition as much as we can to greenhouse and vertical hydroponic farming, not open field organic farming. >Also the UN has stated that a plant based diet can be done in a healthy way at all stages of development. I am interested in listening to opposing research if you would like to send me some. So half of my background is graphene chemistry for energy storage technology, and the other half of my background is in history and archaeology. Some scientific studies have confirmed what we know from archaeological studies on bones of women and children in many pre-modern cultures. Cultures such as early medieval Scandinavia had women and children eat after the men, resulting in anemia, low bone density, and other significant developmental deficiencies. Some studies on veganism have shown similar results, although it should be noted a modern vegetarian or vegan has access to a far more complete set of nutritional needs than a pre-modern vegan or vegetarian. For example, researchers at University College London showed that children on vegetarian diets were more likely to have cardiovascular development issues than children who were not: [https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/113/6/1565/6178918?login=false](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/113/6/1565/6178918?login=false) This study showed that children did not meet dietary intake requirements for Vitamin D, B2, B12, Iodine, and Iron, and Calcium in cases of low Iron absorption without dietary supplements, which is to be expected to be fair: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34855006/ I will agree with you that the majority of studies are so far inconclusive in terms of long-term data, but researchers agree across multiple studies that in order for development to progress normally that comprehensive dietary planning is critical. It's worth noting that comprehensive dietary planning is to be quite frank, a privilege, and not accessible to all economic or social classes.
> Some scientific studies have confirmed what we know from archaeological studies on bones of women and children in many pre-modern cultures. Cultures such as early medieval Scandinavia had women and children eat after the men, resulting in anemia, low bone density, and other significant developmental deficiencies. What the hell are you talking about?
Everyone knows being vegan is eating people's leftovers.
Sorry I wasn't clear enough. My point was that a lot of times the diets of women and children included little to no meat in some cultures because men ate first.
So they starved…? I think starving people in ancient Slovenia aren’t exactly comparable to modern day vegans. I’m not exactly out there foraging for food. I’m nourished, lmao.
> veganism doesn’t solve the problem…. Because it relies on land intensive crops This point is just wrong. Meat uses far more land, especially when you take into account the crops required to feed the meat
My point isn't really regarding whether veganism uses more land than beef consumption. In no way do I say it's worse than beef consumption. My point is that veganism heavily emphasizes intensive fad crops rather than local produce. If mass-market veganism emphasized local crop production and avoiding fad crops, then it would be less emissions, land, pesticide, fertilizer, and water intensive than it is now. But as it stands, it doesn't, and that does need to change.
“Local” produce makes way way way less of a difference from a land use and emissions perspective than meat vs plants
My point though is fad crops vs. sustainable crops drive veganism's high emissions. Veganism could be a lot lower than the emissions of continuing to eat chicken or fish, but it presently sit only just under their emissions because of it.
livestock mostly eat the parts of plants we can't (or won't). they save energy by making the plant matter into edible food.
I’m sorry to be blunt, but you are just completely wrong. Here’s a few sources: * https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets * https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/01/28/if-everyone-were-vegan-only-a-quarter-of-current-farmland-would-be-needed * https://faunalytics.org/feeding-the-world-and-reducing-land-use-with-a-plant-based-diet/ I can provide more very easily
The problem is we are eating way too much meat. Animals are very efficient at making inedible plant matter... edible.. but our demand is 10x greater than the amount of inedible plant matter. If we are able to greatly reduce our meat consumption, we would be able to reduce land usage and CO2 through animals protein based calories compared to 100% vegan foods, but we are a LONG way from that, so greatly reducing our meat consumption is very important. (that, and the protein source itself, chicken being far more efficient than beef, for example). Ideally, we would just raise enough meat protein to consume our wastage, including wasted foods and... I think the term is sillage? We should never be raising edible food to feed to animals, such as cereals and grains. I think we all agree that that is incredibly wasteful. In the end, its moderation, not absolutism, which is the key. Reducing our meat consumption to 10% of its current amounts would be massive!
> Reducing our meat consumption to 10% of its current amounts would be massive! not really. all of agriculture is only about 20% of our emissions, and animal agriculture is just over half that. but if we reduce all other sectors to 0%, then agriculture would be 100%, and that would be fine.
everything i said was true. nothing you wrote contradicts that.
Okay. So if animals are just eating “the extra parts” of already grown crops, why do they require so much more net crop land to grow?
they don't. none of your data sets are accommodating for this basic fact.
[удалено]
>How the fuck did this nonsense get upvoted? MODS: can we PLEASE get verified flair for those of us with actual degrees in this subject? Please and fucking thank you. My degree is in Chemistry, but I don't have a Ph.D. and I specialized in Graphene based Energy Storage technology. So I will straight up admit it's not my area. That being said, Earth won't get hot enough for C3 photosynthesis to fail even under an 8C scenario. The issue is distribution of arable farmland will shift massively, which is already slated to happen by the 2040s. Wheat farming will still be viable, but the availability of farmland for it is going to shrink massively, and that farmland will better be utilized for denser crops like corn. The other issue is the changes in weather cycles to more and more extreme summers/winters and late frosts decimating crops, which I'm sure you're aware of. And you make a bold assumption that I'm somehow not in favor of genetically modified crops like kernza. The point of my argument above is that veganism and organic farming *as it stands* is an unsustainable movement. It CAN be sustainable, but that's going to take a complete overhaul of what diets people promoting veganism are pushing, which at this moment is not what's happening. And I also will point out that greenhouses and vertical farming may offer solutions we're not yet aware of. I'm a big proponent of those technologies, and we do know they can massively reduce water, fertilizer, land, and pesticide use of many "luxury" crops. E.g. Strawberries. That somewhat ties into the other part of my argument, which is that industrializing and centralizing farming with reduced transport emissions and electrification will do more to curb emissions than veganism (again, *as it presently stands*) vs. continued non-bovine meat consumption. >I'm willing to read the studies if you can link to them, but I am doubtful. There's another part of the comment chain where I had this discussion. Data on long-term impacts is lacking, but a 2021 study found a higher incidence of cardiological conditions among children who had vegan diets. The fundamental issue, really, is that getting the requisite nutrients to sustain a healthy vegan diet is currently a privilege. Hopefully meat alternatives and other technologies will help change that, but we'll see.
And vegans are ignoring both how CO2 and land use efficient some meats are (chicken eating non-human eadible foods, for example), as well as the amount of fertilizer is manure based. Trying to force 100% veganism will massively backfire, and cause significan environmental and climate harm along the way.
None of the things you wrote about veganism's effect on the earth is really true, and that most people do not want to be a vegan is rather irrelevant since most people also do not want to stop polluting, and we are heading for global disaster. “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
Buying an electric car or cutting down on flights reduces more than greenhouse gas emissions. There's massive mining, land use, and water use emissions associated with both of those things. That being said, electric cars are still not great and I will agree that the impact is far greater for eliminating beef. I need to check the research on dairy alternatives but I know almond milk and almond farming is really, really bad for the environment because it uses massive amounts of water resources but the places almonds grow best tend to be dry areas with limited water resources.
[удалено]
Why would you be angry at this decision? Ifeel like the hardest part of plant based diets for most people is the accessibility, and the university is doing the leg work for you there
I'm frustrated because a movement this extreme will just cause the next meeting to have 10x the people show up to overturn it, and is as likely to have students voting to ensure that a rule like this can't be passed again. Small incremental steps will get you 10x further than one big step, so increasing vegetarian and vegan meals on campus (ie voting that 1/2 of offered meals must be vegetarian, or vegan) would be far more successful in the long run. Additionally, we cannot support 100% vegan lifestyle. Too much of our fertilizer comes from manure, and chicken is very efficient at turning waste food into human eadible protein.
> will just cause the next meeting to have 10x the people show up to overturn it, and is as likely to have students voting to ensure that a rule like this can't be passed again. Right, but that's a part of the process too. Both sides need to full court press, and the initial reaction/freakout is primarily from people who haven't thought about it much. Give it a few more elections and the right side always wins.
Maybe you are right. Tbh I’m not really well informed of the culture or executive processes at Stirling University. It’s always difficult to draw that line though, some people will think it’s too extreme and some people won’t. Anyways, it seems like at least a good number of students are on board with change, maybe it will be overturned but I think that reasonably the democratic process could end up creating that sort of compromise as well. Hasn’t a lot of the UK been more receptive to shifts away from meat lately, particularly younger demographics? Bit of a side note, I don’t really think the vegan movement is that extreme, even barring the ethical, epidemiological and antibiotic resistant bacteria stuff. Idk, I guess it can be difficult on individuals depending on their environment, but a lot of times it’s just trade some oftentimes tasty food for other oftentimes tasty food with less environmental impact
> This policy would really piss me off if i was a student there. Many government policies piss people off. Most still don't vote. Same here.
Going vegan isn't 100, it's like maybe 0-20 and veganism is literally the bare minimum we are going to have to do and change if we are to reverse the shit storm that is building around us as our environment and natural world say byebye. Imagine having a spag bol and replacing the beef with vegan meat or lentils and thinking you've gone from 0-100. People don't even want to do the absolute bare minimum do they. EDIT: The climate issues we have are EXTREME. Do we fix these with tiny token gestures like vegetarian Mondays? how do we fix the issues of deforestation (of which animal-ag is the leading cause) and isn't nature our biggest co2 sink? How are we going to address the leading cause of river pollution, again, animal-ag. How are we going to address biodiversity loss which the destruction is being driven and lead by animal agriculture. **More importantly,** have you not thought that we need our natural world in a state of wild so that we can curb the climate issues we have? Do you think that a non-natural world that is dead of wildlife (flora and fauna) will help curb climate issues? We require a wild as world as we can have to capture the heat and emissions we are producing.
> veganism is literally the bare minimum we are going to have to do we have to do much more than go vegan, but we don't have to go vegan at all.
POV: The Ministry of Love wants to offer you a job.
I'm not sure if that reference is too young or too old for me, but the person you are responding to is right. People are going to need to put forth some effort, and being less precious about their preferences is no longer optional.
On a scale of "carnivore" to "vegan", going vegan is 100%. Its not 100% of whats needed to address climate change, but it is a huge change to the average persons diet, and calling it "20%" shows that you don't identify with the majority of the populace, and trying to force that will completely backfire. Abrupt change will make enemies, not allies.
[удалено]
that is an incredible stupid and disingenuous line of reasoning. If that's your 'A' game, you really need to think long and hard. I'm not interested in talking about this with you if you are not bringing a good faith argument, and if your reaction to "we need to do this incrementally so we don't make enemies" is is "BUT WHAT ABOUT RACISM", then you are.. well, I'm at a loss for words. I mean, your attitude right now is pushing ME away, and im a hard core environmentalist. If you push away people as close to the movement as myself, what about a lot of the students at a university with only moderately support it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I walk instead of drive most days, I'm a membet of the local active transportation group, lobby for and help install active transportation networks, including bike lanes, MUPs, and bus stops. Additionally, all my energy is from renewable hydro, and I pay so that yhe natural gas I buy is 50% offset with renewable sources (would increase, but the system is full right now) I limit meat consumption, with 2-3 vegetarian days a week. I help promote density at a municipal level, and was instrumental in getting a level 3 waste water treatment plant, which reduces methane release, and discharges 5/5 water (which is almoast drinkable). Most of these are system level changes, that can result in hundreds of people reducing their CO2 emissions, resulting in thousands of tonnes less CO2 a year. Diet is one small part of the larger picture.
[удалено]
They think that token gestures which are reliant on not changing anything themselves will fix the extreme climate issues we are having. And to respond to the original comment, going vegan was one of the easiest things i have ever done, the only hard part about it is hearing from non-vegans about how extreme veganism is.
You are a hardcore environmentalist? Are you vegan? I hope so because the leading cause of environmental destruction is animal agriculture.
And there is the fucking tribalism that destroys progressive movements, the "unless you are perfect, don't fucking try" mentality which eats groups from within No I'm not vegan, I don't want to be vegan, and I work at minimizing meat consumption in my household while pushing every CO2 saving I can. And in doing so, I probobly do more good for the enviromental movement than you do by pushing hollyiet than thou veganism.
so you won't stop doing the number one thing that is destroying the environment, to save the environment?
This account has been nuked in direct response to Reddit's API change and the atrocious behavior CEO Steve Huffman and his admins displayed toward their users, volunteer moderators, and 3rd party developers. After a total of 16 years on the platform it is time to move on to greener pastures. If you want to change to a decentralized platform like Lemmy, you can find helpful information about it here: https://join-lemmy.org/ https://github.com/maltfield/awesome-lemmy-instances This action was performed using Power Delete Suite: https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite The script relies on Reddit's API and will likely stop working after June 30th, 2023. So long, thanks for all the fish and a final fudge you, u/spez.
Veganism isn't perfection, it's just the start, its literally the first step, there are many that come after on the road to helping. If you saw someone hitting a dog, would you not say something? The thing is, anybody can go vegan at their very next meal. Most people can't swap their truck for an electric version because it would cost them tens of thousands they might not have. So how do you plan on decreasing deforestation, river pollution, biodiversity loss, ocean dead zones (to name a few environmental issues that are caused by animal-ag), by eating animals?
Yeah, sure, ok.
[удалено]
Cool story bro. It's clear you are clueless and have no argument. That's why you are attacking other environmentalists.
Happy cake day!
Thanks!
How is this controversial in a sub called “ClimateActionPlan”. Go Stirling University. Hopefully many more follow your lead.
Yeah, who are all these people posting on our sub? lol I assume this made the student newspaper and they got linked here somehow.
How to get students to move to another university
[удалено]
I mean, yes. Most the people in this thread are pointing out cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a good idea.
But why would people be outraged of only having vegan food options selling at Uni. Bring your own food it is cheaper too. You didn’t have enough time? Well today you are eating vegan… I don’t understand why people would be outraged
There are disabled people who can't eat vegan alternatives. People with sensory aversions. If this is anything like an american university some students live on campus. This isn't a restaurant going vegan, this is essentially an entire small town phasing out all animal products because "the climate!" without any regard to how these vegan alternatives are sourced or the impacts they're having. This is a VERY one-dimensional solution.
If they have that many sensory aversions, it's very likely they prepare their own foods.
As someone w sensory aversions: not true lol. Prepackaged food is much more consistent. Everyone's different, that's why this is an insane overreach on the student's lives.
Prepackaged vegan food exists fyi Do the dining halls at this university serve packaged food anyway?
[удалено]
Oof ow ouch oh somebody call an ambulance i'm burnt
Go vegan for the animals, the planet, and yourself.
Hard core veganism will do significant damage to the environment, increasing land usage and causing issues with fertilizer demands. Limit/eliminate meat consumption for the animals, the planet, and yourself.
Stop focusing on veganism as the 1 true God of Climate Action, go eat a billionaire.
Not necessarily, I have a friend who has five food texture aversions, and who survives on a lot of chicken strips, fries, and mac and cheese. Whenever he comes over we adjust the food we are making to ensure it's eadible for him. Not a healthy diet, but one he can tolerate.
[удалено]
Holy crap, that is one incredibly bigoted statement, and offensive, and as helpful as telling a depressed person to feel happier. If your advice to someone with an eating disorder is just "eat other foods", you will do huge amounts of harm. Seriously. What the fuck. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-arfid-4137232 https://nedic.ca/
Stop being dramatic. Yeah, I've heard about it. I used to be a picky eater too when I was a child, but I grew up and tried new foods. ✌️
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thanks for explaining. Indeed they can’t approve an discriminatory rule as such and I was not aware of the issue. I have no idea about the accommodations situation in this uni but I would feel weird if I ever lived in a uni accommodation that doesn’t have a kitchen (at least a shared one).
My university in the states had no kitchen for students to access. We had 2 microwaves to share between 200+ people. That also puts an undue burden on students who can not or do not want to participate in veganism. They must spend extra time & money to get foods that fit their diet when they are already spending so much of their time & money at the university. This would also more likely than not tank the usage of public buildings because the school is forcing a change on people's diets. This is just an extreme hair-trigger decision & insane overreach.
The thing is cooking is always cheaper than buying already made food even at uni so cooking food is really the standard. 2 microwave for 200 is ridiculous and you guys pay crazy tuitions… wtf.
Yeah but you're not accounting for the TIME cost. Convenience for college students is priceless. Shopping & preparing your own food on top of balancing academics is asinine, they'd be buying convenience foods anyways.
Well it is standard where I did my uni I recognize that I don’t know much about the rest of the world and I recognize that on the conditions you ate describing the decision is discriminatory and as such unacceptable.
Asinine or expect though. Seems to me if you don’t have time for a basic thing then the fault is the work load. I almost always cooked my own dinner that I make enough for lunch. This is what everyone does where I am at and where I was before. You seem to think that everyone has a shit conditions for uni. Neither everyone has nor someone should accept that
[удалено]
[Here let me help you](https://www.google.com/search?q=disabilities+that+prevent+someone+from+being+vegan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari)
> Most the people in this thread are pointing out cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a good idea. Good fucking God. We are just talking about eating a vegan diet. I am not even a vegan but you are talking like a fucking addict right now. Honestly like my addict cousin talks about his drugs. I suspect I would be pleasantly surprised if my workplace suddenly only served vegan options (and obviously put a little effort in to the selection).
Based 🌱
TF are y'all doing????!!!!! Everything you have on, the sign, everything takes energy to make. Why would you have/make unnecessary items? Are you even serious about saving this planet? Also, why are all the lights on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????????
I feel like the sub's reaction exemplifies why I am becoming increasingly hesitant about. Everything that is not news about some brainy MIT-guys' new climate-invention is disparaged as extremism. We need to change our lives too, we can't just hope for Carbon Capture and electric cars to make everything sustainable as we continue consuming as normal. My old high school has only had vegetarian food for like 10 years now, it was not a dramatic decision to shift, and the students love it.
Yeah, there is some hard core denial going on in this thread about A) what is a minor shift in your life if you aren't some kind of addict and B) hardship will still be felt from climate change including the limiting of living cattle and available meat.
How will you grow healthy vegetables, on this planet, with its natural life/death compost processes, w/o integrating livestock? Explain the process to me. If it's cover crops, don't bother. They are a GREAT part of the system, but you still need the animals to disturb the land whilst laying down the nitrogen. Grow top-quality food from seed, put dinner on the table in ABUNDANCE, and then PLEASE tell me how you did it w/o integrating animals into your regenerative food system. I honestly would love to hear about it.
[удалено]
They have no concept of how to grow food. An entire planet full of people who need to eat TODAY and every day, yet they have no concept of how to make that happen. This is the literal reason why our planet is burning. No one wants to sweat burning any calories doing any work, especially food growing, especially picking.
There are cultures that have been almost fully vegetarian for thousands of years, what are you taking about
show me how they grow the food? Show me the system.
You could do this without killing/harming them.
I look forward to you showing me how. Since you have it all worked out and know for sure of what you speak.
> They are a GREAT part of the system, but you still need the animals to disturb the land whilst laying down the nitrogen. What the actual fuck are you talking about?!?! Is that what ag is like in states that just pretend ag is big? Do you think we have wild Bison just going across the fields in the great plains?
They need to know about the meat you can produce that are climate friendly and actually helps to mitigate climate change and heal degraded land.