Life is not an Avengers movie. You and I are not superheroes that can save the world. What you or I do in our personal lives have, by any remotely realistic measure, exactly zero impact on the problem.
Thinking otherwise is to me - and I wish I had a less negative term for it - a form of "Delusion of grandeur". It's harmless in a sense, except that people could use the effort they spend to actually improve things for themselves and people around them.
In reality global problems are solved on the global level. Things like carbon taxes, technical innovation etc.
Genuine question. Is there any evidence that the thousands of Americans who have gone vegan over the last few years have reduced the carbon footprint of the meat producing industry at all? I checked us beef production, and the numbers are basically flat since 2000 increasing slightly since 2014.[1]
If thousands of people going vegan don’t reduce the beef production in this country at all, have they really saved any carbon at all? Would love to see someone with a good data science background look into this.
It’s all well and good to talk about personal consumption as if it has fixed carbon cost associated with it, but you have to remember that not consuming doesn’t reduce the emissions unless it affects production.
It’s still probably good to reduce consumption because it could affect the production, but it may not be enough to cause any change at all.
> Is there any evidence that the thousands of Americans who have gone vegan over the last few years have reduced the carbon footprint of the meat producing industry at all?
Reminds me of the covid prevention paradox.
> the numbers are basically flat since 2000 increasing slightly since 2014.[1]
Looking at beef production numbers of a single country is pretty meaningless.
For one, you'd want to look at consumption. Production can be influenced by changing import or export balances without a change in consumption. You can also look at global production figures.
Two, you'd want to look at per capita numbers, to correct for population changes.
Three, you'd want to look at meat generally. (nitpicky) Beef is just one type of meat, it says a lot but not everything. Could be that dietary / health / business preferences shift to or away from e.g. chicken, that aren't related to veganism.
Four, you'd want a more sophisticated research method that'll indicate that veganism is a causal factor for meat consumption than a simple consumption graph. In countries rapidly developing economically (e.g. China), the meat consumption figures would be rising hard with or without say the percentage of vegans doubling from 20% to 40%, that doesn't disprove the impact of the extra 20% vegans. It only shows that other forces (e.g. economic growth) have outweighed the vegan impact, but it doesn't prove that without these extra 20% vegans meat consumption wouldn't be even far higher. % of population that's vegan would definitely show up as a causal variable across countries, almost obviously.
Just approach it from a planetary scale. Total planetary demand is local + overseas demand. Suppose it was 5 + 5 units = 10.
If you reduce local demand by 2 and overseas demand remains at 5, then total demand will go down to 8.
Any economics 101 course will teach you that reducing demand will the equilibrium price, at which price point fewer suppliers are willing to supply. The end result is less production, less consumption on the planet.
As a thought experiment, imagine 90% of the world population disappears tomorrow (demand disappears). Will we produce just as much, simply because the remaining 10% will consume more? The answer is obviously no.
Demand/supply curves aren't flat, so indeed the change will not be 1:1. It's not the case that if 10% stop eating meat, that total consumption will drop by 10%. But demand reduction from one group does lead to a total production reduction and a total reduction in consumption.
Do you realize that the consequences of spreading this message (to the degree it's successful) is, ironically, to hand over all power to the corporations.
You are encouraging people to believe they are powerless and stop doing anything themselves. Action and collective action are very powerful and have changed the world. The Internet should empower that (and did, such as during the Arab Spring) but sadly, it is now used to shut it down through this kind of messaging.
Who does that messaging - despair, you are powerless, you are nothing - who does it serve? There you will find its source, I think.
It serves the consumers of course. Because the first thing it does is absolve all of them of any personal responsibility whatsoever.
No power --> no responsibility --> throw hands up in the air and keep accomplishing nothing, while pointing the finger back at everyone saying it's their fault.
Another way of saying it: Part of the problem is thinking of oneself as a consumer, an object of the corporations, rather than a citizen responsible for and in control of their country.
It is, at the most fundamental level, un-American, a betrayal of generations before us.
You assume, without any argument, that my message is wrong. Obviously none of those zero arguments convince me.
> You are encouraging people to believe they are powerless and stop doing anything themselves
I'm not! I'm saying people should spend their limited energy on improving things they can actually change. This is usually things in your family, workplace, neighborhood. The average person can make a real difference for people that way.
Trying to personally change the global climate will achieve nothing, while the people around you miss the help you could have given.
BTW, in hindsight, the Arab Spring was a disaster that ended with millions dead, and no real improvements, aside from maybe Tunisia.
I did make an argument and don't assume anything. The history books are rife with the power of collective action. Cryptocurrency is collective action, as is all of FOSS. Women's rights, minority rights, every election, etc. etc. Even the reactionary 'give away your power' message is collective action (ironically, against collective action).
There is one thing everyone living in a democracy can do to make a huge difference -- write your elected official (specifically 6-12 months before an election) & include climate stance in your vote calculus.
Isn't a global solution to get everyone to do what they can personally? Why is it global when it applies to corporations but not when it applies to regular people?
The way you get everyone to do things in a society is not by setting an example and doing it yourself but by getting the government to set taxes, incentives, penalties, negotiate treaties - so that people have a clear incentive to behave properly (financial or otherwise).
This presupposes competent governments who care, obviously, which is the crux.
Life is not an Avengers movie. You and I are not superheroes that can save the world. What you or I do in our personal lives have, by any remotely realistic measure, exactly zero impact on the problem.
Thinking otherwise is to me - and I wish I had a less negative term for it - a form of "Delusion of grandeur". It's harmless in a sense, except that people could use the effort they spend to actually improve things for themselves and people around them.
In reality global problems are solved on the global level. Things like carbon taxes, technical innovation etc.