In a report distributed by the World Resources Institute (WRI report World Resources Institute), data is published on the damage caused by the practice of roasting meat, which is common throughout the world
As is my regular habit, on every occasion and every holiday, I complain about the "meat burning rituals" that are becoming more and more common among many celebrants, and this is not about the stench that the "ritual" spreads, but more so the direct emissions of greenhouse gases. Burning coal or wood and even before that the gases emitted by cattle and the human damage to the environment due to the expansion of pastures at the expense of forests - all these contribute greenhouse gases to the environment.
Now the complaints have support from high authorities, in a report distributed by the World Resources Institute (WRI World Resources Institute report), data are being published on the damage caused by the custom of roasting meat which is common all over the world.
According to the researchers, consumers must be aware of the damage and the need to change the menu to prevent damage to the environment. "If the biggest consumers of sheep and cattle only consume one and a half hamburgers a week - by 2050 emissions will decrease and forests will be saved from turning into pasture lands."
According to the authors of the report, the proposed reduction is a possible solution, easy and simple to implement.
Today, Americans, Europeans and Israelis eat double the "recommended" amount, Brazilians eat three times, and Australians also burn meat for the most part.
Citizens of the USA, Canada, Europe, Latin America and Russia make up about a quarter of the world's population but eat more than half of the world's meat production of sheep and cattle.
According to the UN, agriculture is responsible for 11% of greenhouse gas emissions, with most emissions coming from raising farm animals, in the process of digestion and manure production.
There are also emissions due to the expansion of agricultural areas, these emissions are caused when wet areas, peat areas and swamps are dried, as well as when trees are cut down.
According to the forecasts, by 2050 the demand for food will increase by 50%, due to the increase in the population and also the increase in the standard of living. According to the researchers: producing such a quantity of food with today's agricultural methods will cause serious harm to the earth and to humans.
"It will be necessary to cut down most of the forests, which will cause the disappearance of thousands of species." There will also be greenhouse gas emissions that will exceed the level agreed upon in the "Paris Convention" in 2015 (according to the convention, an increase of more than 1.5 degrees must be prevented in order to mitigate the climate change disaster).
Although scientists are working on breeding and feeding methods that will moderate the emissions of cows, sheep and goats, until the development of the methods is still a long way off today and in the meantime the production of one ton of protein from cattle or sheep causes the emission of greenhouse gases at a rate four times that of the production of the same amount of protein from pigs and eight times More than chickens.
The offensive combination of the need for large areas to raise sheep and cattle for grazing or growing food, with the belching and bloating "skills" of ruminants - requires an immediate response, which is a significant reduction in meat consumption and a decline in the custom of burning meat.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
9 תגובות
From a constructive criticism response: "Because if the end of the world is approaching, why would I give up a good hamburger"
Demonstrates what I said "and if they did hear, then they just get angry that something is bothering them to enjoy and celebrate like there is no tomorrow".
Everyone sees only their own immediate pleasure. And eating meat in quantities is a status symbol for wealth and a good life.
And he does not understand / ignores the objective situation (without "guilty feelings" or "non-relevant things") that humanity is in today.
Each detail adds a little damage but together a devastating effect but no one wants to give up or at least reduce amounts. 6 were opened only on Lady Street! Large and active meat restaurants within 50 meters of each other.
Man is an explosive species, both in the number of items (7.7 billion today compared to 2 billion in less than 100 years!),
And in the technologies he developed for the utilization of the environment that leverages the dilution of sources and pollution.
It demands more and more and at an exponential rate, natural resources, pours huge amounts of waste and toxins into its environment, and destroys every good plot, in the name of industrialization, construction and agriculture.
And like any eruptive species that goes out of numerical balance and exploitation of its environment, it will soon use up its resources and destroy its environment, which is the basis of its existence.
Unlike other species, man is a creature that thinks and plans in advance.
Will there be someone who will change the direction on which humanity is racing
Is this how an individual himself will understand what is expected of him and his descendants if he continues his current behavior
Will anything stop the mad race to the abyss?
Regarding the alternatives - yes, it is not yet completely resolved and it won't be tomorrow, but it is still more logical and practical than illusory laws.
And the truth is well done for the deception regarding a quantitative and qualitative difference, you did not contradict what I said, you even agree that they are not the same, so actually your answer was a beautiful demagogic deception!!
to the "gatekeeper".
It seems to me that you are not "bad" at all.
A. You didn't internalize that his way of presenting was bad, even though I explained at length, you didn't understand at all that this was the subject of the response.
B. If the end of the world was not of interest to them, which is again a lack of understanding from the demonization of the "enemy", why would they read his whining?
third. "The difference between burning and roasting is quantitative, not qualitative," - factually this is simply not true. I'd love to know why you think statements that are factually incorrect help your arguments.
d. "The difference between a stench and a "favorite smell" is a matter of habit" - another strange and factually incorrect claim, maybe there are smells that you can get used to, maybe there are smells that you learn to hate because of ideology, but specifically the smell of grilled (not burnt) meat is instinctively loved even by by cats
God. And regarding your self-description "- the writer is one of those for whom every injury "pains".
In an environment like…” – add purity and self-righteousness to the list of qualities that repel the average reader from these articles.
To: "constructive criticism",
It turns out that the "excited reference" is effective in a different way
It is doubtful whether "hamburger lovers" like you that "the end of the world"
They don't care if they bothered to read,
According to your order:
- The difference between burning and roasting is quantitative, not qualitative,
- yes "increasingly common" because more people have the financial possibility,
- The difference between stench and "favorite smell" is a matter of habit
And in this case the habit of "smell" is harmful and therefore stench.
- It does hurt, but in the head (not in the ass)
because of the poisoned air,
- Regarding the "development of alternatives" (in Hebrew alternatives)
Read this:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-meat-grown-in-the-laboratory-environmentally-friendly-1407192
And understand the problem.
- The writer is one of those for whom every injury "hurts".
in the environment such as: air pollution, littering, noise production, etc.
Therefore, an emotional volume was added to the professional facts,
"as" ?
For Roy, look how the writer opens his article:
"...I am complaining about the "meat burning rituals" that are becoming more and more common among many celebrants, and this is because of no stench that the "ritual" spreads..." - the average reader (yes, the one who eats meat) knows that it is not meat burning but roasting, that the custom is not "becoming common" But it was always common, and that it wasn't a "stink" because he likes the smell of roast meat.
You immediately get the impression that the writer is another "pain in the ass" that others enjoy, and he has to screw them over the celebration with his slanders that do not connect to reality.
So that even if the writer writes professional and factually correct comments - all his credibility, and the reader's attention, were lost because he simply had to "put them in".
So stop with the "excited appeal to the heart of the meat consumers" and talk to the point, without slander, without feelings of guilt, without approaching, and without horror scenarios of the end of the world - because if the end of the world is approaching why would I give up a good hamburger?
And no, there is no need for delusional laws (as if restrictions on consumption ever worked). You just have to develop proper alternatives. And it's already been done with veggie burgers that are getting better, and synthetic meat.
The writer cannot be matter-of-fact, and simply must push away his pain from the fact that others are enjoying and he is not a party to the celebration. Already at the beginning of the article he writes:
complains about the "meat-burning ceremonies" that are becoming more and more common among many celebrants, and this about no stench that the "rite" spreads,
It's not a fire, it's a roast, and it's not a stench when most people like the smell of roasting meat.
And it is not "increasingly common" but has always been.
So Roy, before you complain about the meat eaters, learn how to present data and arguments, stick to the objective reality, and not your personal sentimentality and butthurt.
In my opinion, the problem does not lie in the social event that takes place on average once every few months where they go out into the synthetic nature and burn meat on the fire, but in everyday life and the products that everyone buys and eats all the time. For some reason, a lot of eggs and/or milk and its products are pushed into them, if needed and especially when not needed. The effect of this unnecessary consumption probably drowns out the marginal consumption of meat and the coals used to grill it.
Also, for some reason, the perception took root that there must be daily meat consumption, and that everything else is just "decorations" around. This is true for the diet of the Inuit in the Middle Ages. But here? In a Mediterranean country, this is absolutely not true.
In short, you should look for struggles that are a little more significant and have a chance, and a little less futile.
Roy
In my opinion the step you propose is a bit extreme at least for this stage.
In the first step, there should be a government plan to reduce meat consumption, unlike today when the state supports the meat industry.
First of all, we need a law for the state to at least compare the treatment of substitute food from plants to that from animals.
For example, it cannot be that the price of milk will be controlled and soy milk will not.
The production of soy milk is much cheaper than real milk (in addition, it also has a longer shelf life, which also lowers the cost) but it costs twice as much!!!
The second step should be neutrality for the animal food industry by the state. Stop support of any kind, cancel water subsidies and price controls.
At the same time, remove from the law the most cruel practices that will be easy to convince to support their ban, for example "forced servitude" which includes starving chickens to the point of death.
In addition, encouraging companies to switch to healthier food with a low ecological signature (for example, accelerated depreciation on investments in new products in the field) and at the same time government campaigns to encourage vegetarianism. (A government campaign can have a very big impact. Also because the consumer knows that it is not done for economic reasons)
And only in the third stage will production restrictions and taxes be imposed on animal food.
Her face is moved to the heart of the meat consumers, she is a face in vain.
They don't read or hear or are interested in it. And if they did hear, then they just get angry that something is bothering them to enjoy and celebrate like there's no tomorrow.
Sounds ridiculous, impractical or even whimsical. But only a global quantity limitation law, which assigns a general and upper national consumption threshold, might help.
If not, it's a disaster in the making, with increasing signs already giving their signals..
And the causes of it, are only going to accelerate their strength.
to a critical point. in which the natural systems that sustain humanity will collapse at once.