I’ve been the bane of chickens all my life…

Nuts are nuts!

What else?

Sure. Imma keep using my jet though.

Cool cool…I don’t want to do anything for the climate though.

I am a strict humanitarian. I only eat humans.

Ontop of that, factory farming is a lovecraftian horror that floods the universe with terrible agony. And there’s very good reason to believe that the suffering of animals is as real and awful as yours or mine.

Not having kids is a whole order of magnitude more impactful. Or even just having one kid instead of 2 or 3+.

I would assume a competently executed strategy of eliminating the worst offenders (and/or the managing infrastructure thereof) would probably have more impact, they probably meant legal things though.

For instance, a solo campaign of taking out the biggest data centers would probably work. Difficult though.

your tulane link is not exactly good science. it relies on Clark (2019) which itself relies on Poore-Nemecek (2018). Poore & Nemecek built their data by combining LCA studies, a practice which is specifically discouraged by the studies themselves and the guidance on LCA studies generally. we can’t really rely on those conclusions at all.

they also rely on Behrens (2017), which shares a problem with poore-nemecek, though a more nuanced one: they myopically distill data from input-output to calculate environmental impacts like water and land use and ghge. this seems reasonable at first blush, but in fact it overlooks the complexity of our agricultural systems. for instance, one of the things farmers feed cattle is cottonseed. cotton is grown for textiles, and the seed is largely waste product. feeding it to cattle is a conservation of resources, and doing so should in no way count against the land, water, and ghge statistics for cattle.

but that’s not really here or there, as it turns out, because the thrust of the paper is not “these foods are bad for the environment” or “these foods are good for the environment”. the actual claim made in the paper is “there is not actually sufficient data sources available to determine which foods have which impacts”.

Isn’t not having kids more impactful than anything as that’s entire person’s life of co2 you’re not creating.

Still going to VOTE! Don’t know why that needed to be in there, next to car and red meat

It shows one person greening an average pension is 57 times more effective in dealing with the climate crisis than having a vegan diet and 20 times better than driving an electric car.

I heard a similar news report on PBS a couple weeks ago. Aside from the obvious, and already mentioned, don’t have kids. Both for the environment, and to not put your kids through the coming bullshit.

Cute.
I’d be more interested in adding private and commercial airliners, long-haul trucks and tanker ships to the list for comparison.

Perfect is the enemy of good only if you WAIT for perfect. I eat minimal meat, get my veggies from a local farm share, have solar panels, an EV that charges only off excess solar production, a heatpump, have re-insulated the attic, ditched the gas range for induction that runs off solar, etc. My footprint is less than anyone around me, but probably still way higher than your average individual living in the global south.

I’m trying to hit net zero and once I hit it, I’ll keep going because Canada (where I live) is rich and I want to continue to reduce my footprint (the dream is net negative in my life) because I’m privileged and have the resources to push harder. I make it a game - figure out what’s my best opportunity to reduce my footprint, do it, move on to looking for the next thing I can do.

Giving up (most) red meat and patting yourself on the back is severely minimizing what you COULD be doing. I’m a long, long way from perfect, and am exceedingly lucky to have the resources to play this game - but carbon reduction is a way of life, not a checkbox IMO.