Tyson Foods and the federal government refuse to show their math for a new sustainability label.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Corporations respond to consumer demand. Don’t buy beef and there won’t be massive deforestation and insane methane emissions. Every dollar you spend on beef is supporting the 1% and the corporations you claim to hate.

      • alienanimals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I wasn’t even alive in the 1970’s when Exxon knew about climate change and lied about it to the entire world. Those rich fucks have been exploiting the climate for their personal gain for many decades before either of us were likely even born. I won’t be giving up the few small liberties I have so that the rich can continue doing whatever they want.

        And good luck getting every single consumer to agree with you. I suspect you’re going to be waiting a long time for your plan to work.

        Instead, we should be punishing the individuals responsible for 40% of the climate change problem. Not punishing the rest of the world who did not profit from exploiting the climate problem.

        • Bolt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          As horrible as those people are, it’s not like they’re just belching carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for fun. They’re fulfilling demand. That 40% wouldn’t disappear just by spreading ownership of the factories to more people. That’s not to say that individual action is the only thing that works. Regulations need to be put in place to curb emissions, incentives should reward producers for investing & transitioning to more sustainable practices, and yes, monopolies need to get split up.

          But the fact remains that some products are just bad for the environment. As as long as people continue buying those products they’ll keep being produced. And when animal agriculture accounts for about as many emissions as the entire transportation industry, this seems like one of the easier steps to make.

          The “my actions won’t end this problem so I don’t need to do anything” mentality never comes up in any other field (politeness, crimes, social change, voting). Yeah, choosing to never hold open doors for others wouldn’t noticeably affect the global rate, but I doubt you’d use that logic to justify being rude.

          • alienanimals@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            To say Exxon was just, “fulfilling demands” makes them seem like good people. They KNEW they were causing climate change 50 years ago. They suppressed the information. Many Americans are dependent on their oil. It’s all part of the design of our roads, infrastructure, jobs, etc. These corporations only care about their revenue streams, not the streams of water and how clean they are. Hoping the majority of consumers band together to do the right thing simply will not work. The corporations and the executives need to be held accountable or we will continue to flounder on climate change.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Unfortunately it goes back further than that. We knew anthropogenic climate change was a thing in the late 1800s, and the oil companies started doing the research in the early 1900s. They knew by 1910 that they were flirting with disaster. Which just allows everyone to say, “nope, not changing anything personally, because those decisions were made before I was born.”

              I agree that it’s unfair that we have to modify our consumption when it makes so little impact. Hopefully meat in vats is actually better for the environment, but I’m not counting on it for the first generation. It is finally being served in a couple restaurants so that’s a first step

              • hypelightfly@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It has nothing to do with fairness. Modifying consumption at an individual level doesn’t help and isn’t even a step to solving the problem. It’s literally propaganda to shift blame and make sure nothing is ever done to address the issue.

                If you’re relying on individuals you may as well just give up. There needs to be systemic change forced by legislation.

                • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Modifying consumption at the individual level unintentionally creates boycotts that the local consumer isn’t even aware they are involved in. This compounds when the local consumer happens to be an upper manager, because they will carry their biases against corporations, such as Nestlé, into the corporate world, and continue their own boycott of services that are undesirable.

                  Again, totally unfair to the individual since we carry so little responsibility, but we also carry the ability to crush corporations that refuse to follow the people’s will. Look a bit deeper into why Enron, or Sears-Roebuck collapsed. You’ll find that your real power is burying corporations that have no value.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Modifying individual consumption is literally the only viable solution. It just cannot be voluntary.

                  • hypelightfly@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That was sort of my point. I guess it would be better stated as putting the decision making at the individual level doesn’t help, or something like that.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              To say they’re filling demand is a morally neutral, and objectively correct, standpoint.

              Many Americans are dependent upon their oil

              This is the actual problem to solve, and why you should support carbon tax-and-dividend.

            • Bolt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not defending fossil-fueled energy production. When the product is energy it’s inexcusable to produce it in such a grossly irresponsible manner.

              But if “coal energy” specifically was the product, and consumers overwhelmingly directly choose it rather than available renewable energy, then yeah I’d cut companies a bit more slack. When the harm isn’t in method but the product, and people are choosing that product instead of alternatives, then much of the blame rests on them.

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Many Americans are dependent on their oil. It’s all part of the design of our roads, infrastructure, jobs, etc.

              No, it’s all because America ‘needs’ to be competitive with the world on a military level. This means that whatever will make us progress the fastest is the route we’re going to take.

              Operating without oil will severely hinder US military progression, which is why we don’t do it. It’s the same reason why no nation does it that has a stake in world affairs. Slowing down to save the environment gives your enemies an advantage.

          • tomi000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Thats because we all have been raised to be polite and hold doors open. We have also been raised to consume anything and everything to satisfy our greed because it is our right as rulers of earth. It is the standard and noone criticizes you for it, so why not keep that privilege? It is apparently very hard and takes a long time to get rid of this mentality in the whole population, especially since the most influential ones fight for keeping it.

            • Bolt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you really only do good things when you’ve been conditioned to do so? You don’t ever try to grow past what society tells you? I’m not asking you to solve everything. I’m asking you not to be a part of the problem. Defending your behavior by pointing to that of others has not been a historically sound position.

        • andrewta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The reason why we will fail when it comes to the climate: we can’t even agree on who to blame and who to punish and how to change the situation to solve the problem.

          We are f’d!

          • tomi000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is no need to agree on who to blame. We all need to fight together and do our best.

            Trying to shift blame away from ourselves is the actual problem thats keeping us from making change.

        • tomi000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Noone is saying we shouldnt punish corporations. We should, but how does that give us a free pass to keep exploiting the environment? How can you demand change from others when you decline changing yourself from the start?

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I won’t be giving up the few small liberties

          One thing that has always bothered me about veganism is how freaken privileged it is. Cooking without animal products is more work and just has less reward. It is a privilege of the rich or at the least a full-time homemaker. I am upper middleclass now but I have been poor. Animal products are a hit of happiness with low effort.

        • vividspecter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The goal is to reduce emissions. If you want to reduce emissions significantly, you must massively reduce or eliminate meat consumption.

          And so any solution, no matter where it comes from, will result in meat being either banned or becoming absurdly expensive. So why not get ahead of that and learn to live without meat?

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yet you drive a car and continue to eat meat.

          It’s anyone’s fault but yours.

          • alienanimals@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t have a car, but yes I’m a little bit at fault. I never said I wasn’t.

            But only an idiot would think I’m just as bad as people who made millions of dollars making the climate problem substantially worse. I didn’t get rich by fucking our planet. I’m just trying to get by unlike the executives exacerbating climate change so they can make a couple million more.

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, I definitely don’t think you’re just as bad.

              The powers that be have a vested interest in making sure we’re depending on making them richer.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t buy beef and there won’t be massive deforestation and insane methane emissions

        have you tried that?

            • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because Chinese demand for meat offsets our progress. So we should give up trying? Great logic

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So we should give up trying?

                if you tactic is ineffective, you should try a different tactic.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because Chinese demand for meat offsets our progress.

                whatever the excuse, it’s not working.

                • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “China isn’t doing their part, why should we?” Ok, GOP talking head.

                  That’s the excuse every conservative in the USA gives for ignoring the climate crisis. The fact is that our efforts ARE working in Western countries. That doesn’t mean we should stop.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    your arguing against a straw man.

                    I’m saying your tactic isn’t working. it’s not a personal attack. it’s a useful insight.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, we can both eat less meat and also demand change from the rich, they aren’t mutually exclusive. “Because they do it too” isn’t a great excuse

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hey not all of us! I plan to get a job working in whatever underground cyberpunk hell scape is our future. It’s you surface people who are screwed.

        • renownedballoonthief@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Going vegan isn’t “making sacrifices”, it’s the right thing to do. Rich people aren’t the ones consuming all of the meat, it’s everyday schlubs like you.

          • alienanimals@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Here’s the problem that schlubs like you don’t understand: The rich people who profited from causing most of the problem aren’t making any sacrifices and expect everyone else to do it for them.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                No but making yourself miserable for no reason won’t either. Look, I am personally trying. Got meat down to about one meal a week (oh Lord that one meat meal a week is so awesome), only driving when there isnt another option, and not blasting my AC. This doesn’t change the fact that there are big big problems that individuals making themselves feel like shit won’t solve. All my effort can be undone in a single day by anyone on earth and they don’t even have to plan it out, it could just happen.

        • ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lololololol, painting the sales of a product (eg gasoline) as personal usage and then aggregating it as a metric is just about one of the most disingenuous use of statistics I regularly see spouted.

          So tired of any personal responsibilities. Fuck those oil producers heating my home polluting the planet!

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow, this is so sad. So as long as there are people doing worse shit than you thats an excuse to keep going?

      ‘I wont stop raping as long as there are murderers out there’.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      rich assholes fly around in their private jets fucking up the world

      Funny you mention this because the article specifically calls out people who think air travel is a more meaningful contributor to climate change than their own diet preferences.

      Also your entire take is based on the idea that these 1% corporations just like, burn fuel for funsies, instead of selling products to people which are then consumed.

      This take, for instance, is pants-on-head stupid:

      A household making $980,000 from [investment in] certain fossil fuel industries, for example, would be considered a super-emitter, according to the report.

      Might wanna rethink your entire worldview there bud.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’re sharing the same article I’m quoting from, which is making a stupid argument.

          If you want to fight climate change, you must understand that aggregate demand is the driver of climate change. Companies don’t get rich by fucking up the planet. Companies get rich by selling people shit. The shit they sell is fucking up the planet. Cut the demand and you lessen the fuckening.

          The way forward is by tackling aggregate demand, ideally through carbon taxes and investment/subsidies in green technologies.

          I am a literal climate lobbyist, and this is the angle actual people involved in fighting climate change work from.

          • alienanimals@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m a climate scientist and a sociologist. If you think that we can get everyone on the same page about giving up their personal liberties and small pleasures (like eating meat) so the rich can continue to exploit the problem further for their own profit, we’ve already lost.

            The only path forward is to jail the corporate executives and rich assholes causing the lion’s share of the issue, but instead we get bootlickers arguing for an impossible goal of herding a bunch of cats to stop doing something they love to make up for problems mostly caused by the richest 10%.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If you think that we can get everyone on the same page

              I literally say the opposite of this

              The only path forward is to jail the corporate executives and rich assholes causing the lion’s share of the issue

              In addition to being completely unhinged, this does not address demand at all and someone else will simply start selling those fuels and products/services

              You’re either lying or terrible at your job.

              • alienanimals@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I can see you’re having trouble understanding basic logic. Let me explain it to you this way:

                If I started a business throwing used motor oil into the ocean, I could charge people next to nothing to take their oil. I would make huge profits by destroying our planet. Your strategy would be to convince all the poor people in America not to use the cheapest option to dispose of their oil. Many Americans don’t have a choice between using an expensive “good for the Earth” option and my business that throws it into ocean for cheap.

                You lack an understanding of the people you’re trying to coordinate. Many Americans lack the time and the money to correctly choose the most environmentally friendly option. You will never get everyone on the same page. The only path forward is to punish the rich assholes actually causing the lion’s share of the problem.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  This is an idiotic counter-factual.

                  The reality is, fossil fuels companies are constantly listed as “top contributors” because they fucking sell fossil fuels.

                  Until we remove the present need for fossil fuels by disincentivizing them in favor of green technology, then we will continue on this path. Fossil fuels aren’t burnt for fun. They are used to power homes, transportation, etc. That’s what we need to tackle.

                  I understand it is attractive to have a “villain” to point at. It makes things much easier for you and absolves you of your role. However, this is both non-productive and, ultimately, objectively incorrect.

                  You’re correct that voluntary abstinence is not enough to be meaningfully impactful, that’s why we lobby for government subsidies and, ideally, carbon taxation.

                  I know you, personally, are a lost cause - you’ll fight anything that will “disadvantage” you. I’m writing this because some lurker will see it and that’ll be one more vote. One vote at a time is how we win.

                  • alienanimals@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I see you were unable to refute any of my points. Instead you continue to bootlick for the rich just like every other lobbyist. Fuck off plutocrat parasite.