I don’t think the drive example is a good analogy as the files aren’t individuals with a free will. You can sort and delete them as you like. Based on one single person’s decision.
In case of animal products you have a huge market with producers, middlemen and consumers. If you want to change the market, you can’t just manipulate one part of the players. Unless you you’re a dictator with unlimited backing, you have to reduce offer and demand more or less simultaneously.
If I have a 50 GB zip file on my disk that I created 5 years ago and which I don’t need anymore, I can just delete it and that’s it. No one will stop me, no one will defend it.
Now let’s take Saudi Aramco, BP or Shell which are huuuuge companies, each equipped with numerous lawyers, lobbyists and massive marketing budgets. As far as I know, there is no delete button on their homepage. They will defend themselves and their profits with everything they have. And as said, they have a lot.
But even if, let’s assume we take the three companies listed and just delete them. Within minutes, there will be chaos on the whole planet. Without oil and gas, there’ll be no fuel, no heating, no plastics, no electricity anymore. All supply chains will crash. And within hours or days there’ll be wars, massive wars for the little fossil ressources remaining and afterwards new companies will take their place.
If we want to delete these companies, we first have to make ourselves independent of their products in all aspects. Which again isn’t easy as they’ll try to avoid that from happening. But also here, end customers have a big lever. Take a bicyle, bus or train instead of a car. Change your car into a BEV. Install solar power if you have the option. Lower your heating a little and put on wamer clothes.
If you see big oil as the issue they are, then you should act accordingly within your possibilities. And if you find solutions for yourself for any of the dependencies above…
you will personally reduce your foot print (‘small file on the disk’)
your parents/neighbours/coworkers/friends etc. may notice these solutions, apply them for themselves and also becoming role models themselves (‘medium file’)
you help more sustainable companies (solar, public transport, …) to grow through your consumption (‘medium file’)
and finally, once a critical mass is reached and we gained a certain degree of independence, it allows politicians to act accordingly (‘big file’)
the meat industry does have a lot of emissions, and they need to be regulated to do better with their emissions
What options do you see there? As far as I understand, there’s not much you can do there as it’s mostly physics. Every extra step in the food chain dramatically reduces efficiency. If you want to produce calories, proteins or fats, producing plants for consumption always will be significantly more efficient than producing plants to feed animals for consumption.
And getting rid of big meat (JBS, Cargill, Tyson etc.) in favor of small, independent meat farms may be a good thing to combat capitalism and (maybe!!! slightly!!!) improve the conditions for the animals, but it won’t bring down emmisions. In fact, many small farms may even lead to higher emmisions because certain measures (e.g. using biomass from manure to produce electricity, using bigger vehicles for transport etc.) can’t be applied as efficient on a small scale.
The only way to cut back on meat, egg, milk … emmisions is to cut back on consumption. And I think politicians will have a very hard time if they try to mandate that against the will of the public.
I don’t think the drive example is a good analogy as the files aren’t individuals with a free will. You can sort and delete them as you like. Based on one single person’s decision.
In case of animal products you have a huge market with producers, middlemen and consumers. If you want to change the market, you can’t just manipulate one part of the players. Unless you you’re a dictator with unlimited backing, you have to reduce offer and demand more or less simultaneously.
I’m using the drive analogy only to highlight the quickest way to reclaim space. With space here being the amount of clean air and water we have.
Also yeah the meat industry does have a lot of emissions, and they need to be regulated to do better with their emissions.
I do agree with that we need more holistic change across the board to undo some of the damage done.
If I have a 50 GB zip file on my disk that I created 5 years ago and which I don’t need anymore, I can just delete it and that’s it. No one will stop me, no one will defend it.
Now let’s take Saudi Aramco, BP or Shell which are huuuuge companies, each equipped with numerous lawyers, lobbyists and massive marketing budgets. As far as I know, there is no delete button on their homepage. They will defend themselves and their profits with everything they have. And as said, they have a lot.
But even if, let’s assume we take the three companies listed and just delete them. Within minutes, there will be chaos on the whole planet. Without oil and gas, there’ll be no fuel, no heating, no plastics, no electricity anymore. All supply chains will crash. And within hours or days there’ll be wars, massive wars for the little fossil ressources remaining and afterwards new companies will take their place.
If we want to delete these companies, we first have to make ourselves independent of their products in all aspects. Which again isn’t easy as they’ll try to avoid that from happening. But also here, end customers have a big lever. Take a bicyle, bus or train instead of a car. Change your car into a BEV. Install solar power if you have the option. Lower your heating a little and put on wamer clothes.
If you see big oil as the issue they are, then you should act accordingly within your possibilities. And if you find solutions for yourself for any of the dependencies above…
What options do you see there? As far as I understand, there’s not much you can do there as it’s mostly physics. Every extra step in the food chain dramatically reduces efficiency. If you want to produce calories, proteins or fats, producing plants for consumption always will be significantly more efficient than producing plants to feed animals for consumption.
And getting rid of big meat (JBS, Cargill, Tyson etc.) in favor of small, independent meat farms may be a good thing to combat capitalism and (maybe!!! slightly!!!) improve the conditions for the animals, but it won’t bring down emmisions. In fact, many small farms may even lead to higher emmisions because certain measures (e.g. using biomass from manure to produce electricity, using bigger vehicles for transport etc.) can’t be applied as efficient on a small scale.
The only way to cut back on meat, egg, milk … emmisions is to cut back on consumption. And I think politicians will have a very hard time if they try to mandate that against the will of the public.