109

Australian red meat industry says it doesn’t need to meet its self-imposed net zero target (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 10 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11740609

Prof Mark Howden, the director of the Australian National University Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, said the sector’s net zero target is “effectively not possible”.

“It’s pretty well embedded in the public consciousness that red meat is high profile in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per serve,” Howden said.

“I suspect the industry saw this as a fundamental threat to their future … A few years ago everybody was kind of jumping on the net zero bandwagon without actually thinking through what it actually meant,” he said.

The CSIRO found the industry would fall short of meeting its net zero target, and instead recommended the adoption of a “climate-neutral” target that would require a reduction of methane emissions rather their complete elimination.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] IndefiniteBen@leminal.space -3 points 10 months ago

People could just stop what? Eating?

Buying meat? Is becoming vegetarian not more expensive in terms of time and money for someone who has a meat diet? Many people do not have the money or luxury to make such a change?

Expecting everyone to become vegetarian is unrealistic. If you're buying meat and all companies you can choose to buy meat from are making the same carbon neutral "commitments", it's not like you can choose the company that will actually follow through.

But anyway, blaming people for the depravity of companies is also not going to fix anything.

[-] muix 9 points 10 months ago

A plant-based diet is by far the least expensive one on the planet

[-] IndefiniteBen@leminal.space 2 points 10 months ago

Sure, but to get to a plant-based diet that meets the dietary and taste needs to replace a meat-based diet, takes an initial investment of time that some people may not be able to spare.

I'm not saying a matching diet will be more expensive, but the cost (mainly time) of changing diets is an investment some may be unable to afford. If there was a lot of social support for the working poor to change diets, sure, but to say changing diets is something that won't take more time because the buying of produce and active cooking takes the same time is misleading.

[-] muix 2 points 10 months ago

That is a good point. Hopefully governments around the world will help people transition at eventually. However, for now, it should point corporations and governments in the right direction. If people, that can spare that initial investment, stop their demand for animal exploitation.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024

109 points (98.2% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5352 readers

1335 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: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net