this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
110 points (87.7% liked)

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

5194 readers
993 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: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
110
Eating less beef is a climate solution. Here's why that's hard for some American men (www.npr.org)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, i think that research might be missing some context...

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240618/Study-finds-men-eat-meat-more-often-than-women-especially-in-gender-equal-developed-countries.aspx

Meat consumption by males goes up when you have a developed nation, it's almost purely economic, stupid to try to make this part of the culture war considering how small these communities are and their median ages.

"Economic factors explain the influence of human development since meat production costs are higher than plant-origin food production. Nations with more resources provide more options for individuals to buy and eat beef. The findings build on comparable studies with psychological traits and help rule out reference group effects as a possible reason."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Has anyone here ever heard of this website? News-Medical.net ? Unless it's an actual study, and not some BS where data is cherry-picked from certain sample groups, I wouldn't pay it any mind.

Toxic masculinity (a.k.a. patriarchy) most definitely affects men eating more meat.

Subsidies for industrial beef production greatly affects it.

But all of this is due to the lack of societal/political change.

And, in all honesty, if it was not for the pollution created by the US military and "big business", we'd be on our 2ay to a much greener Earth already, without having to affect far more change.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's a journal site, here's the link to the actual study in nature. The language is tougher.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-62511-3

I think i see where you're coming from, to me it feels like traveling a long path from the obvious economics of subsidy and advertising, especially the ubiquity of beef, and making that about the patriarchy. Feels removed from the problem of economic incentive, but more than just access seems to drive it, this paper has multiple relevant drivers though and it does seem to be at least partially based on gender.