- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
“We have to stop destroying the planet as we feed ourselves,” a World Bank official said, as red meat and dairy drive CO2 emissions.
Cows and milk are out, chicken and broccoli are in — if the World Bank has its way, that is.
In a new paper, the international financial lender suggests repurposing the billions rich countries spend to boost CO2-rich products like red meat and dairy for more climate-friendly options like poultry, fruits and vegetables. It’s one of the most cost-effective ways to save the planet from climate change, the bank argues.
The politically touchy recommendation — sure to make certain conservatives and European countries apoplectic — is one of several suggestions the World Bank offers to cut climate-harming pollution from the agricultural and food sectors, which are responsible for nearly a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.
…
The paper comes at a diplomatically strategic moment, as countries signed on to the Paris Agreement — the global pact calling to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — prepare to update their climate plans by late 2025.
You must log in or register to comment.
I cant wait for some conservative idiot to spin this in the worst possible way. Mixed in with some lies, whataubout-isms and straw-mans for a delicious disinformation-coktail!
Florida has already started the “they’re coming for our meat” with the lab grown meat ban if you haven’t seen.
In Europe soy milk can’t legally be called milk anymore. It’s Soy Drink on the packaging. The farmers won that one. Now they’re coming after vegi burgers allowed to be called burgers.
My arguments to “if it’s not from an animal or isn’t milk” are:
- What do you call the white liquid inside a coconut?
- What do you call the laxative/antacid that comes in a blue bottle?
- Coconut drink
- Drink of magnesia
It’s just that simple!
/s
Magnesia Julius. Just add nutmeg.
That’s coconut water. Coconut milk is made of processed meat!
It would be funny if you just started calling it coconut malk instead of milk. Literally just changing the word milk by one letter.
Malk is rat milk, iirc
I’ve got nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?
- Gross
- Also gross
The coco NUT
They won’t win burger or sausage or anything like that. You can already put what you want in those, breadcrumbs, vegetable protein, fruits and vegetables, various flavours and spices, and it’s still a burger/sausage.
The milk I get. Milk was highly controlled in terms of what adultrants were allowed, so when they say “we can’t even add extra aspartame, but they can make the whole thing out of oats?” They get a lot of traction. Now why they wanted to add aspartame I don’t have a fucking clue.
milk-like plant juices or saps have been called milk since 1200. such as milk of magnesia, milk of almond
That’s very true.
I’m just saying that Milk is a regulated term that’s already been used to stop the milk industry from misbehaving so it’s easy for the milk industry to use it to keep out competitors. Burgers, sausages, and other highly mixed foods aren’t regulated the same way and I don’t expect the meat industry to have any success on those fronts outside of rogue states like Florida.
Stuff like this is so silly. I understand having rules around how things are named, nobody wants to be misled about what they’re buying. But were cow juice enthusiasts really getting tricked into buying soy juice? Do we have to specify the animal? Can I sell rat milk as ‘milk’ and they’d be ok? What’s the difference between that and oat milk? So long as the origin of the milk is clear I really don’t see the issue.
Obviously I know it’s just dairy industry deep pockets doing what they can to remain #1 but it’s just so silly.
Well it was originally designed to stop the dairy industry from putting weird stuff in milk, so there definitely a need because they kept trying to put weird stuff in it.
That part I understand, no more formaldehyde and brains in the milk. It’s more the industry fighting against the term being used for alternative milks which should have their own standards associated with them. Coconut milk and cream have existed for ages and nobody cares. But my (dairy farmer) family all of a sudden have really strong opinions on using the term milk for alternative milks. Or other generic terms being used for vegan products like mince, sausage, burger, steak. All of these things typically have a word in front to describe what they’re made of, but for some reason certain people get real worked up when that word is ‘vegetable’.
Being a regulator is like being a teacher. There is one kids who keeps putting crayons in his nose so you make a no crayons in your nose rule to stop him and it works great until this one kid uses crayons in nostrils to make amazing pictures for a talent show and suddenly the first kid says “hey I thought you said no nose crayons, why is she allowed crayons now”
The main problem is that it’s actually super hard to have a regulatory definition of “milk” that forces the dairy industry to not put stuff in milk, but also allows up to 100% of the product to be oats.
Vegan steak will be difficult for the same reasons. But I would guess vegan sausage, burgers, nuggets, boneless wings etc… will be very easy to approve since some products are already more fillers than meat already lol!
This problem is worse with cheese, using words like “cheese product” or “butter flavoring” for butter. Nobody is getting confused about Oat milk not being from cows, but these “not quite cheese” products are misleading.
what’s a better name we could come up with for Soy Drink? we just need a new word
Legume Malk
Nut Juice
Bean Nectar
I think it now just says SOY or OATS on the packaging. Seems marketing figured out that if you stop the drink you can increase the font size.
I always drink plenty of malk.
But seriously I’ve seen malk and also just “m*lk”.
“Notmilk”? I mean its not milk, and kinda rolls like nut milk
According to German “what to call stuff that’s not actually juice” rules, assuming for a second that we consider soy a fruit, it’d be “soy nectar”.
This drivesme nuts. On the other hand I enjoy the companies working around it such as calling their products “Not M*lk” and such.
Not “anymore” it never could be called that. Figures that soy beverages are not a product containing excretions of mammary glands.
Next up: You can’t call salt sugar. Oh the tyranny!
…things like coconut milk got grandfathered in based on local usage when the regulation was enacted, in any case that was before Alpro started to sell you 4ct of plants and 0.0001ct of water for three Euros.
That’s stupid. I’d take lab grown meat, the vegemeats are ok, but I crave real meat and this is best for all. Less land dedicated to animal farming (they can actually graze and live their lives cruelty free) and less farm land for livestock feed(i forget how much land is used to feed our food)? That means even more food grown directly for us, isn’t this the goal?
Iowa did something already last year being a major pork producer. Kim Reynolds and her GOP ilk fucking suck. Already ruined and continuing to destroy a once nice and progressive state with shitty policy and hate. Remember when Iowa was at the front of gay marriage? I miss being proud of at last some of the changes coming from here, now I can’t get if here fast enough. Finally got a WFH position, now I just need to convince my wife that she can fly back to see her parents that live about 3 hours away as is.
Iowa was at the front of gay marriage?
I still can hear the podcasts about America’s growing homosexual corn problem. Even if they never happened.
I agree, let’s end subsidies for the industries that are fucking up the climate. Fuck all the weak snowflakes who don’t want to change their meat consumption. How hard is it to not eat beef? Not hard, people are just weak. So hit them in the wallet then, if that’s what it takes.
Even as a rancher (native prairie, low input) I agree beef is way too cheap. Well, it was, now it’s starting to be more appropriately priced.
Considering everything from the labour involved in raising it ethically to the nutritional value, the consumer pays very little for beef for what they’re getting. Even if it means people eat less beef, the price should go up. It would also favour small farmers like me who would rather raise less cows sustainably on grass than overgraze chasing high volume sales.
Honestly, it makes sense. Something’s gotta give or we’re all fucked. We should already be eating less red meat and dairy anyway since they’re less healthy than white meat and milk alternatives - adding the economic incentive would be a push in the right direction to be healthier and more eco-friendly.
Beans, chickpeas and lentils are my favorite daily superfoods. So cheap, so tasty, so healthy. Meat is so far in the rearview mirror I don’t even understand the concept anymore.
Care to share a favorite recipe or two? I’ve been meaning to step up my legume game for a minute.
Thanks in advance, but also no presh! 🤙
Black bean tacos. Whatever you do with beef, use a can of black beans instead
I tried putting black beans on my grill but they fell through the gaps. Help?
No thats okay, the charcoal adds to the texture
Dried beans are even nicer and cheaper, although I get they require a little more work.
This is not my native language and I’m too lazy to translate whole recipies, so here are just a few tips:
- Cook yellow lentils with vegetable stock to make a creamy sauce, add more stuff and seasoning to taste
- Red lentils stay a bit harder and replace minced meat very well
- Brown lentils with smoked tofu, leek, potatoes, celery and carrots make a great German lentil soup
- Find a recipe for bean chili
- Look for potato and pumpkin-curry
- Throw lentils and chickpeas or beans into tomato sauces and see what you like. There are no rules, I put beans or lentils in every meal!
- Make a fresh salad and toss in cold pasta and beans for a real meal
I really like misr wat. If you can find the berbere spice mix and red lentils I highly recommend it.
I like emerald dol.
Rinse, then soak 1.5 cups of dried lentils for at least 20 mins.
Bring to boil then cover and simmer for 15 minutes in 3.5 cups of water (I just soak them in the pot and turn on the burner). Add 0.5 tsp of salt, turmeric, and chili powder at start of simmer.
Add 1 lb of chopped spinach (I use the frozen blocks for this, basically leave it simmering while they thaw, stirring occasionally to break up the blocks quicker).
In a separate pan, melt 2 tbsp of butter (or whatever equivalent butter-like substance), I add a bit of coconut oil also because I don’t have coconut milk and generally use almond milk instead, so the oil gives it some if that coconut flavour. Chop up an onion and add it to the butter. I also add some fresh garlic and pickled minced ginger, but these are modifications I’ve made to the recipe.
Add 1 tsp of mustard seed and cumin (I use whole cumin seeds but powdered also works).
When the onions are done to your liking (recipe says when they are translucent, but I personally like fresh onions so don’t always cook them that much), add in 0.5 cups of coconut or almond milk (or whatever, even dairy milk would probably work well if we weren’t avoiding it), plus 1 tsp of garam masala and mix all that in to the lentil/spinach pot.
It’s pretty much done at this point, but I’ll keep the (low) heat going for a bit. Watch the moisture level, it should have a consistency of a thick stew.
Put some naan bread in the oven @400 F for ~10 minutes or to however cooked you prefer it. I like to break off pieces and spoon some dol on top as I eat. You can dip it, but it’s too runny to pick up a lot that way.
All measurements are suggestions; pretty sure I use more than that for the spices and one package of frozen spinach blocks is a bit less than a pound (500g).
It scales up pretty well (I usually do a double batch) and freezes well.
India has a lot of vegetarians and a lot of foods that don’t just try to be vegetarian versions of meat dishes, so I suggest checking out more Indian recipes if you’d like more options.
Chicken broth + lentils + whatever veggies you got lying around = tasty as shit soup
Just make sure to wash the lentils first
And to REALLY up your game use a mirepoix as the base.
Any advice for a person who doesn’t really like the mushy texture of beans or chickpeas? I love hummus but I can’t do whole chickpeas.
I love hummus, too!
- Try black beans and edamame, they are more crunchy.
- Try different brands and put small amounts in every meal until you get used to it.
- Buy a pressure cooker and cook dried beans yourself. The are cheaper und the texture is so much better! You can cook more than you need and put them in the freezer for later use.
You can roast them in an airfryer. Chickpeas in particular come out well that way.
Roasted chickpeas with cauliflower is the bomb, especially with some cajun seasoning
Whole chickpeas do have a disagreeable texture. Black beans and edamame don’t squick me the same way, so maybe give them a try if you haven’t already?
There are several recipes that call for mashed chickpeas. Especially sandwishes.
You can make burger patties with mashed beans or mashed chickpeas, and another ingredient that holds it together such as crumbled bread.
When you have cooked black beans, you can blend them, with onions, garlic, salt, and romarino, and use them as filling for soft maize tacos, with spicy sauce. I’ve also been meaning to try them as a dip for maize chips, haven’t done that yet.
There’s also something weird that I sometimes do, in that I’ve never heard of anyone else doing that or seen any recipe for that, it’s just something I do: I blend romano beans into a pizza sauce. I put a generous amount of sauce on my pizza, and lot of vegetables. I love my pizzas like this and it makes for a complete meal with protein.
may be turned into a culture war battle
May be? Bit optimistic, don’t you think?
deleted by creator
Me “not eating pork” is already a political statement to my mom’s side of the family and has been for a at least a decade. A government body recommending less beef? The horror!
Bet they claim there’s not enough land for solar panels, too. If we all eat one or two fewer burgers every week, there’s plenty of land.
How about a carbon tax?
Everything should have a carbon tax. Someone once told me, “but who would pay for that tax?” Implying that we will be the ones to pay it. Thats the freaking idea.
The rich have problems paying just their regular owed taxes, nothing even exceptional; they draft legislation to lower their own tax rates while keeping taxes on labor the same.
Why is capital gains taxed at a lower rate than income? Is sitting on a pile of money and watching it grow somehow more noble than sweating and hard work?
I think a carbon tax is necessary but I think getting the responsible parties in our industrial world to actually pay it, would be extremely difficult. You’d never see such bipartisan cooperation in various governments until someone threatens the subsidies for the liquid black gold.
There seems to be an awareness void concerning the concept of who uses the most carbon and the creative non regressive ways in which those taxes can be distributed. I’m sure that’s a coincidence though…
Carbon taxes need a caveat that prices cannot change due to the tax. Otherwise it’s just another way for big business to profit.
“We had to raise our prices because of the carbon tax!”
“But the tax is 8% and your prices have gone up 20%”
shrugs “Dunno. Carbon tax.”
The impossible love of fossil fuel companies for carbon taxes - ScienceDirect
Economists agree that carbon taxes are the most effective solution for climate change mitigation. But where do fossil fuel companies stand on carbon taxes? I analyse how the 100 largest oil and gas companies communicate on carbon taxes. Surprisingly, I find that 54% of companies that have a policy on carbon taxes support them (78% for the 50 largest). This is puzzling as an effective carbon tax should reduce the revenues and reserve value of fossil fuel companies. To understand this paradox, I offer non-mutually exclusive reasons why fossil fuel companies might support carbon taxes. Oil and gas companies could use a carbon tax to get rid of the competition from coal, create a level playing field and remove regulatory uncertainty. Or they think that these taxes will not affect them because demand for oil and gas is inelastic or that international coordination will fail and lead to leakages. Finally, it could be that this is simply a communication exercise. A carbon tax helps them shift the responsibility from fossil fuel companies to customers, voters and elected officials.
As a bonus it’s much healthier. Win win. Though a large portion of the population won’t see it that way.
No subsidies for anything actively harming the environment.
So no subsidies at all then.
Even wind and solar are detrimental to the areas of land queried for the elements to make them.
They are replacing much worse systems
The net harm to the environment is lower because of them.
Net harm is not what you said though.
Wow, you sure are a Technical Genius
What if I told you that television shows were dangerous? It’s true. In the year 2000, four out of every five injuries occurred in a home that owned a VHS copy of Robocop III. Someone might say, “That’s compelling Robocorrelation, but that data alone does not suggest Robocausation.” Fine. But maybe your first instinct was to say, “Robocop III is a movie, not a TV show, you fucking dumbass.” If so, then congratulations, idiot, you’re a Technical Genius. You’re smart enough to spot a technicality, but too dumb to know everyone else did too and it was light years away from the point. You’re the kind of person who tells your doctor, “Um, it’s Chief Chirpa?” when he tells you that getting the Wicket doll out of your asshole will require surgery. “And, um,” you’ll add, “it’s an action figure? Maybe you should have gone to a non-stupid medical school.”
https://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-people-planet-are-all-donald-trump
I would think that’s implied. Almost every activity where you’re creating something can be considered harmful because you can’t create something from nothing.
If we take the stance that we should consider harm in absolute, then whatever support you might be getting should be cut off because we individually are the most harmful being on the planet. It wouldn’t matter if you cut yourself off from society, build a little cottage in the woods and live a frugal lifestyle, the absolute harm is still many times higher than any other non-human living being on the planet could have. The good it would do doesn’t matter because we’re only looking at harm.
In what way does it benefit the discussion to talk about harm in absolute? Because from my perspective it has no benefits, it just comes across as a contrarian copout.
Dinosaurs back on the menu boyz
Not in Florida
Sounds good to me, I love chicken and veggies!
Same! Well, TBH chicken often tastes gross to me (grew up with a parent that thought ‘boil it in maybe-salted water’ was the way to go). But there’s plenty of non-beef options! Tofu, turkey, textured vegetable protein, it’s all good. (TVP’s great for things like sauces, where you just need the texture of ground beef, but the other flavors would drown it out anyway). Even a peanut butter and jelly sandwich makes for an easy work lunches.
Ground turkey is actually a surprisingly good ground beef substitute in a number of dishes.
We use ground turkey almost all the time over ground beef. It’s great in chili, tacos, meat sauce, lasagna, etc. The only time I use ground beef anymore is when I get it free from my folks (they always support a local 4h kid and purchase part of a cow).
We’ve been using ground turkey instead of ground beef for couple of years now, never had a dish where I missed the beef.
I’ve been using ground pork, chicken, and turkey instead of beef for the most part for a while now. I’ve noticed that when I do use beef, it’s kinda gross compared to the others. Like it can get a bit of a BO smell to it.
It made me realize I don’t even really like beef. I’ve mostly gravitated to instances of it that grind it up and mix with a bunch of spices and stuff like meatballs and burgers. The beef flavour itself isn’t really pleasant, I find.
Well, you might just be buying trash beef.
I still enjoy beef, I’m just eating far less of it than before.
It is possible, but even if there is beef I’d enjoy now, at this point I’d rather go on believing there isn’t. I don’t think I’m missing much.
Grilled, baked, and fried are all good ways to try chicken but boiled? Damn, no thanks.
TIL some people never heard of poached chicken. It’s great if you poach it in really strong stock, comes out really moist. Great for shredding or chunks in salad
I think the important bit is “maybe-salted water”. My same parent didn’t like garlic, so I didn’t get exposed to it (or most other seasonings) until college.
Not to worry. My partner is trying to make up for lost time keeps incorporating actually-seasoned chicken into meals. I’m to the point where “well, it tastes good when he does it, but I’ll still not cook chicken for myself or order it in a restaurant”.
Yeah, boiling a chicken sounds nasty as hell, but I guess if you did it right it could be good. Closest thing I’ve heard of is chicken soup lol
TBH chicken often tastes gross to me (grew up with a parent that thought ‘boil it in maybe-salted water’ was the way to go).
Funny, this is why most people hate veggies
I also suspect an overexposure to canned veggies is also to blame. Canned veggies can be soggy-gross. I really like frozen veggies, though. They fill the same “lasts nearly forever” niche, but with a better texture.
Oh, and kale can go stuff itself. Kale and collard greens are the only two leafy greens I just can’t stand.
Kale, IMO, has to be cooked. I love a good roasted/destemmed kale tossed onto just about anything, but raw kale can fuck right off.
Canned green beans are great. I love them mushy, hate them crunchy. No idea why.
Frozen veggies are good, but they don’t always cook the same. Frozen Brussels sprouts fry up great, but I tried roasting them on the grill last night and they just turned mushy. Not sure if it was them or me, but I’ve done fresh ones on the grill just fine.
Don’t worry, it’s not you, it’s them.
They fried okay because the oil physically alters the brussel sprout by more evenly distributing heat and then driving water out, firming it up.
When things are frozen though the water in their cells expand and can rip themselves apart. When you grilled them, these weaker cell walls didn’t have any chemical or physical reactions firming them up. They just sort of steam themselves and go limp.
I’m also a fan of canned green beans, but only the french sliced ones. I think that helps with the stringiness you can sometimes get. Oh! Creamed corn is also a lovely comfort food for me.
It’s kind of funny that I’m very open to all sorts of new goods but still “traumatized” by the overcooked slop I got served as vegetables as a kid. Who knew spinach wasn’t this black slimy stuff from a can, but can be a tasty leafy vegetable?
Yeah, my parents took this approach with veggies too. Luckily it didn’t put me off completely, but I can certainly see how it could.
It’s a shame how many of my parent’s generation just don’t know how to cook anything that isn’t boil it in a pot until it’s soft - it isn’t like the other, tastier methods are difficult or take longer either.
Crazy how enthusiastic everyone here is about some rich guy telling us what we are allowed to eat.
He probably flies private and eats a steak every day.
While that needs to stop entirely, the 1%’ carbon footprint (yes, it applies to them too, this is what everyone here is actually pointing out) sums up to about 15% of global GHG emissions at the consumption level. Huge, but they are few, they aren’t “masses”.
We need GHG emissions to drop at least 100% (to 0%) and then we need to remove carbon (so that’s negative emissions) to get closer to the safer atmospheric CO2.
Hey, I have re read your comment a few times. Important info, but unsure how it relates to my comment. Rich people don’t contribute that much to C02? So they can tell me how to live my life?
Not to mention other things besides C02. Methane, garbage, water use
Hey, I have re read your comment a few times. Important info, but unsure how it relates to my comment. Rich people don’t contribute that much to C02?
There are 2 necessary changes as layers in this context:
-
There are also studies that show the GHGs for “rich people’s investments”. This is important because they are in the way of necessary adaptation and mitigation. We can’t do anything meaningful about climate and biosphere because that would require ending profiteering from planetary destruction, it would require decommodification.
-
Rich people’s consumption is excessive for anything. Not just their carbon footprint, but their ecological footprint. But they are a small minority, especially the richest. Being a small minority means that if they lose their… wealth and become wage workers, that’s going mean only a decrease of 15% GHGs. This 15% is not meaningful to avert ruining the planet’s surface. We need more than 100% (zero emissions and then removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). This means that EVERYONE has to participate, which also means that we need cooperation. And you don’t have cooperation in a capitalist class society with all this “rat race” going on, you can’t, we’re literally all enemies (competitors) in this game.
So they can tell me how to live my life?
That’s one side of it, yes. To have any meaningful action, all sides of economic activity have to change, we need decreases in production (supply), but also in demand (consumption). If only production decreases, the demand side goes nuts and there’s hyperinflation and other problems. If only demand decreases (unlikely), the production side, which is owned by rich people, may decide to force and coerce an increase in demand somehow, as has been happening at least since the end of WW2.
Here, a game: https://play.half.earth/
-
Meat and dairy should be way more expensive in general
It is it’s just paid with tax dollars in many countries
“red meat”
What does this expression even means nowadays?
Beef should be expensive. It should return to what it was thirty or forty back: a luxury item. Nobody needs to eat a steak every day.
But is pork still - or again? - red meat? It had been disqualified as such some time back.
Bring on cheaper vegetables, please. I’m seeing cabbage peak at €2,19. Poultry is on average €2,29, peak on the €2,69. It’s borderline as expensive to make a pot of quality soup than to make a roast chicken.
Cheaper veg means either more subsidies or more slavery. Check out the greenhouses outside Almeria. You can see that place from space, and it’s chock full of African workers in 40C+ heat making a pittance.
I think meat benefits from corn being pretty much automated on a giant scale. Most veg needs workers to harvest it, and a lot of it rots quickly once picked.
You raise a good point and ending slavery should be a top concern.
I’m in Portugal, and we’ve had a few cases of slavery and abused foreign workers here as well, which is shameful for us as a nation, but we have many good examples of good practices where applying technology improved production, lowered waste, turned out better product for the consumer and allowed for less use of hand labour but with higher salaries.
The starting investment is high but the subsidies you mention could/should be converted into low or zero interest, long term loans and the money recirculated towards more improvements in the sector.
Greenhouses do consume immense ammounts of fertilizers but water is better manageable under those conditions than sowing corn, which is well known for being a syphon for water and agro chemicals, and usually leaves the soils destroyed after a few years of intense farming.
Any change for a better model done will a step forward. Cattle, as it is raised today, I don’t find it sustainable.
How about heavily carbon taxing the rich cunts, hmm?
You know, instead of another bullshit scheme to offset the responsibility of climate change to the majority of the population with the least control over it?
The problem with that is the rich still get to enjoy it and the rich live in excess. It would make more sense although logistically nonsensical to keep the price the same but only the poorest are allowed access to it
Why would that make any more sense?
It wouldn’t make sense because, as you’ve pointed out, it would be nonsensical
I understand the frustration about the injustice behind it, but it’s missing the point. Justice should never be the reason to support something thats so harmful to our environment. Imagine giving a private jet to every economically disadvantaged person in the name of equality - we’d be fucking ourselves over big time. Meat is actually a luxury product that’s only kept affordable based on some of the most environmentally destructive tools of capitalism.
It sucks that luxury products exist. It sucks that ultra rich people exist, but it’s the unfortunate fact of our times. Overturning this system is a seperate fight. And eating red meat won’t win it.
Lately it has been reversed… Chicken prices have been more than pork… Even on the chicken quarters I normally get. I’m hoping once lab grown is scaled that we’ll be able to get steaks cheap.
As a vegetarian who’s been excited for lab grown meat since I’d heard of the concept a decade ago, I wouldn’t hold your breath. It’s looking like one of those things that sounds great on paper, but isn’t viable at larger scale.
