235
Meat is a leading emissions source – but few outlets report on it, analysis finds
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
235 points (95.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
7392 readers
402 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm fairly certain that human population has gone beyond what the earth can sustain.
That's only true when people eat meat. The capacity increases about 90% higher if everyone were vegan.
Good luck trying to get Americans to give up their meat.
So you're telling me I could live in a world without meat but almost 10 times more people? Why would anyone want that?
I have to buy more steaks.
It'd be able to pretty easily sustain the current population with more sustainable lifestyles and renewable infrastructure in the most polluting countries.
Industrial meat, consumerism, and fossil fuel use are all driven by capitalism. If we get rid of that and work on addressing those problems, we'd be chill.
This factually incorrect. Earth can sustain the current population easily - just not with our current death-spiral of capitalism.
It's also one of the core eco-fascist talking points.
Where are the actual numbers on this?
Here's a summary of a paper on how we could sustainably support the current world's population at a decent living standard
Interesting. I'm pessimistic about anything that conservative being implemented in the US. Too many of the conservatives in this country have the "rugged individual" myth engrained. I'm sure there are a few who actually have the skills to survive like that, but they overwhelmingly vote like they can.
It's conservative only in that it "conserves our ability to live on this planet". The measures described in the paper can only reasonably be implemented under a socialist government that has taken full control over economic development. Capital C Conservatism as a political ideology, however, seeks to conserve existing societal hierarchies, hierarchies such as capitalism which, ironically, is expressly running us towards civilisational collapse due to climate change.
On what, exactly?
On the carrying capacity of the planet.
Okay but what exactly do you want to know? There isn't one single gotcha study that would answer this. There's plenty of studies that show things like food wastage, or land wastage to feed the meat industry. There's articles on crops that waste excess water, like almonds, or technology that does the same, like AI. You then have to use critical thinking skills to put all that together and determine that maybe capitalism is the main issue and not overpopulation.
Give me everything you've got!
I drank from a water hose as a kid, and I love to drink straight from the hose of knowledge.
Malthus was a fascist and you're a fascist for repeating his bullshit.
Now back on topic: I'm pretty sure the couple companies that are mostly based on fossil fuels being responsible for around 90% of greenhouse gases are the main contributors to climate change, not meat production, even if it contributes too.
It's a bit extreme to call them a fascist when they likely are just ill-informed on the actual carrying capacity of the earth. If our standards are so high that we don't have room for people to be wrong and to learn before calling them a fascist, then we'll actively push people away from wanting to learn.
Fascism is a far right ideology. I'm very far left.
You seem to use "fascist" as an ad hominem fallacy.
You're using it to attempt to discredit my statement.
That's the ad hominem logical fallacy.
If I'm wrong, show me data, and I'll retract my statement.