• setVeryLoud(true);
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Smaller, more focused publications tend to have higher reporting standards is what I’ve noticed.

  • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The cows are bad it seems, but it’s glossing over natural gas companies not maintaining their infrastructure of leaky pipes. They are both larger emission producers, and completely unnecessary and unjustifiable.

    Edit: It’s hard to feel that the environmental debate has been hijacked. Even when an article lists 2 higher sources of methane production with corporate leakage in gas pipes, the focus is solely on beef. Is this industrial astroturfing, or vegans that have their own skin in the game so to speak and this isn’t about the environment. The environment is a complex topic that requires multifaceted solutions to solving different contributory factors, yet it’s been condensed down to this weird meat eating witch hunt.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not all greenhouse gas production is equal nor should it be treated equally. If we eliminate the personal automobile from being needed to commute to work, literally nothing else about society needs to change and we are at pre-ww2 emissions.

    • LSNLDN@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah like take methane which is 20 times worse than carbon as a greenhouse gas, but we don’t talk about that because not enough people want to stop eating meat - which accounts for more emissions than all types of transport combined

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We have to both tackle fossil fuels and meat production if we want to hit climate goals

      To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

      (emphasis mine)

      https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357