The correct or the most viable would be to stop consuming any kind of meat. Humans do not need meat to survive, we get the nutrients in other ways. Also, I find it very sad the way animals are treated in industries, the videos are literally shocking and inhumane. I feel bad for knowing that I still can not put the meat aside in my meals. First, because I have always been taught to eat meat since I was a child, and I am not a fan of salads, vegetables, and I am still investing in this food change.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious The environment asks for help, do your part!
- Thread starter Mimas
- Start date
It's not meat in particular that's unsustainable, but red meat. And actually, without supplementation, some nutrients are going to be more difficult and inconvenient to intake. I think if we switched our diets to insects it'll be way more sustainable in the long run. Some fish is also a good alternative to red meat, but it's not bulletproof since overfishing is a thing. We should be supporting lab grown meat anyway. The day lab meat is out will be a great day. I get to enjoy food (as lab grown meat these days have identical profiles to traditional harvests), animals don't have to get killed, and there won't be gajillion tons of resources wasted in the making of the animal that'll be slaughtered for meat.
I remember that two years ago in my school had a project with the intention of planting various seeds to decorate the backyard of the school. I liked it a lot, studied and learned about certain plants, how to plant them correctly and how well they do for the environment. I recently saw some videos and news on the internet about the city hall knocking down a green area of my city to build another part of the asphalt runway. Many people were upset by this decision, there were protests against the city hall and she was poorly seen in the city. My city has always been quite green, I believe that it was once more, since the city is becoming industrialized. However, we have a certain historical part where the whole green area is quite preserved.
It turns out that the protests are a way to make politicians not come to overthrow more trees and plantations without necessity, however, it is not the protests that will recreate new trees and plantations, it is necessary that people act also, and I do not I see no environmental movement acting on that issue. The more trees planted, the greater the biodiversity of these beings, the city will be even more beautiful and decorated, and be much safer against the sun's rays, hot air and other consequences.
As for automobiles, I would say that it is much more difficult to have control today, and will probably continue to be so in the future. Unfortunately, anyone's dream nowadays is to have a car, to have their own vehicle not to depend exclusively on public transportation, for several reasons. First, there must be more investment in public transport, so pass all security to the passenger and show that they can be viable options for the population. A little bit of the buses from my city: everyone is almost ruined, they are always in trouble, totally old, the windows are not protected so that the sun's rays do not enter so much and bring with them a hellish heat.
Besides, I totally agree that we're fucked up with it, even more animals, and this shocks me because some people do not have perception of how much that will affect them, it's hypocrisy itself: if it does not harm me, I will not interfere. I believe that if each of us did our part, it may not improve, but it is less worse. Otherwise, vegans would not be vegans, since of 100%, I'm pretty sure that only 30% of society is vegan, meanwhile, millions of animals are killed every day, and it will not stop overnight, there must be patience.
ugh i wouldnt want anyone to get the idea that the biggest threat from climate change doesn't begin with our oceans (where much of the CO2 we pollute out ends up), such as when ppl suggest red meat is the problem, this is not necessarily the case. the problem is the way most red meat is grown, however in theory red meat production entails an increase to the biomass greater than outputs if proper grazing practices are followed. TIK has neatly poisoned the well on the phrase 'industrial agriculture' but the practices of factory farming meat is terrible for animals and the environment. thankfully for you who enjoy bbq it does not have to be this way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_intensive_rotational_grazing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_intensive_rotational_grazing
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I wonder how many of you are concerned about fashion waste.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44968561
As far as I know, not only the fashion industry pollutes a lot of water (chemical dyes and other additives), fashion waste (dumped clothing) is a huge problem for landfills.
The fashion industry, especially fast fashion, produces way too much clothing, and come up with ways for people to buy way more clothing than they need. This includes making very cheap but low quality clothes.
And people might only wear a T-shirt for a few times, then throw them away.
Whereas decades ago, people would wear a T-shirt for years.
For fast fashion brands like H & M, the quality is low, and a T-shirt might look old within a few washes. But lots of people buy from these brands because the price is low.
A lot of people think they could just donate their old clothes to poorer countries, but the truth is, not even the poor wants them.
And fast fashion isn't the only problem. Designer brands tend to dump unsold clothes into the landfill, because they don't want the poor to ruin the brand's image. This sounds absolutely stupid to me. They could have distributed the clothes to their staff members, at least.
Back to fast fashion. Very few countries recycle fast fashion. I've only heard of India doing it-- and they aren't being recycled into clothes- they are being made into blankets or rugs.
=========
What we can do:
1. Stop buying from brands which clothes do not last.
2. Try buying second hand clothing from other people. Some charities or green groups organize clothes swap events where you can swap your clothes with other people during the event.
3. Try dyeing your clothes to a darker color. They look less old this way. (You can use the waste water to flush your own toilet)
4. Try making bags or rugs from T-shirts that look very very old.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44968561
As far as I know, not only the fashion industry pollutes a lot of water (chemical dyes and other additives), fashion waste (dumped clothing) is a huge problem for landfills.
The fashion industry, especially fast fashion, produces way too much clothing, and come up with ways for people to buy way more clothing than they need. This includes making very cheap but low quality clothes.
And people might only wear a T-shirt for a few times, then throw them away.
Whereas decades ago, people would wear a T-shirt for years.
For fast fashion brands like H & M, the quality is low, and a T-shirt might look old within a few washes. But lots of people buy from these brands because the price is low.
A lot of people think they could just donate their old clothes to poorer countries, but the truth is, not even the poor wants them.
And fast fashion isn't the only problem. Designer brands tend to dump unsold clothes into the landfill, because they don't want the poor to ruin the brand's image. This sounds absolutely stupid to me. They could have distributed the clothes to their staff members, at least.
Back to fast fashion. Very few countries recycle fast fashion. I've only heard of India doing it-- and they aren't being recycled into clothes- they are being made into blankets or rugs.
=========
What we can do:
1. Stop buying from brands which clothes do not last.
2. Try buying second hand clothing from other people. Some charities or green groups organize clothes swap events where you can swap your clothes with other people during the event.
3. Try dyeing your clothes to a darker color. They look less old this way. (You can use the waste water to flush your own toilet)
4. Try making bags or rugs from T-shirts that look very very old.
Last edited:
reminder that race is the principal factor and correlation when it comes to exposure to toxic waste. this has been known ever since 1987 when the united church of christ released their seminal report detailing this phenomenon. black/indigenous environmental scholars have expanded off this, detailing how environmental racism has been historically materialized. any proper environmental efforts need to have a critical race analysis in their execution and implementation.
important reads:
http://www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/summers.html -- former chief economist of the world bank; this leaked memo is a core artifact in dissecting the scope of u.s. pollution and international impact
https://www.inspiringcapital.ly/wp-...-Urban-Development-in-Southern-California.pdf -- a foundational text scaffolding off previous academics' works, revising & building a framework of what true environmental justice should look like
important reads:
http://www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/summers.html -- former chief economist of the world bank; this leaked memo is a core artifact in dissecting the scope of u.s. pollution and international impact
https://www.inspiringcapital.ly/wp-...-Urban-Development-in-Southern-California.pdf -- a foundational text scaffolding off previous academics' works, revising & building a framework of what true environmental justice should look like
Last edited:
RODAN
Banned deucer.
this recent study shows that china is emitting an insane amount of illegal gases that are destroying the atmosphere http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201905270049.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/chi...ouse-gas-that-destroys-ozone-layer-study.html
Can someone explain how discussing about racism will actually lead to solving environmental issues? Isn't it much better to devote resources towards mobilizing and solving these environmental issues rather than devoting resources on discussions about who is disproportionately affected by the said issues?
Solving issues > sjw blaming game
Solving issues > sjw blaming game
Last edited:
I do not remember if it is exactly in China, but every once in a while it happens the news here show that Asian cities are requiring the use of masks for the population because of the extreme emissions of polluting gases.
I think it's called "Linfen". Beijing is another place where you have to wear masks more often than not. (unless I'm talking about places that are related to each other but you get the idea).
Yes Flare , you got it!
Here we go with a picture of Linfen (China), the most polluted city of the world!
According to BR Wikipedia, Linfen is a city in China, which is in Shanxi Province. It is the most environmentally degraded city on Earth according to Blacksmith Institute studies. It is a region rich in coal. The population is 4,127 million people. The inhabitants of the city are forced to wear protective masks because of high air pollution and therefore the rates of respiratory diseases in the city are extremely high and even more aggravated by half the population of Linfen being smokers.
I just have a question: Why would people smoke in a city where is considered the most polluted city of the world?
Here we go with a picture of Linfen (China), the most polluted city of the world!
According to BR Wikipedia, Linfen is a city in China, which is in Shanxi Province. It is the most environmentally degraded city on Earth according to Blacksmith Institute studies. It is a region rich in coal. The population is 4,127 million people. The inhabitants of the city are forced to wear protective masks because of high air pollution and therefore the rates of respiratory diseases in the city are extremely high and even more aggravated by half the population of Linfen being smokers.
I just have a question: Why would people smoke in a city where is considered the most polluted city of the world?
Just to pretend that you're making a good faith argument here for a second:
Everyone knows that exposing residential areas to toxic waste is a bad thing. They have always known, it's in the fucking name. And yet it happened. Repeatedly.
So if you want to stop it from happening in the future, its worth asking the question of how the fuck did it happen in the first place. And, yay for humanity! It turns out its the same stupid as shit reason as it always is.
And for the actual reason I came in this thread, I wanted to say that while redyeing shirts and eating less meat are things that you absolutely should do for a variety of reasons (ok tbh I am not gonna redye my shirts..), their impact on the overall future of the environment is fuck all.
However! There is a way that you as an individual can have a massively disproportionate impact on improving the environment without having to like run for mayor or something: donate!
Some options:
https://www.footprintnetwork.org/
https://camfed.org/
https://www.coolearth.org/
Thank you for the advices Hipmonlee!
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Usually it's China, because people just don't follow the laws and hope no one finds out.
And if they do, they'll just bribe their way through.
I would not expect less coming from China, since its companies are quite famous and really dominate the international market, together with the United States mainly. Most of the products I buy here in Brazil came from China, the United States or Vietnam, that is, as a Brazilian I can say that we consume more Asian products than Brazilians generally. Since our market has a focus on the exterior and not for the inhabitants themselves.
Happy World Environment Day!
World Environment Day: What we can do for air quality:
Today is World Environment Day, and this year the United Nations (UN) has chosen air pollution as its theme. Let's talk about this?
The productive activities have accentuated the environmental impacts, in both urban and rural areas. The need to produce more and more rapidly and in greater quantity has contributed to the drop in air quality, especially in large urban centers. However, just as atmospheric pollution increases, the concern of scientists and environmentalists is also growing, in order to find ways to reduce air pollution.
The following is a series of measures that can help in combating the degradation of this natural resource essential to life:
World Environment Day: What we can do for air quality:
Today is World Environment Day, and this year the United Nations (UN) has chosen air pollution as its theme. Let's talk about this?
The productive activities have accentuated the environmental impacts, in both urban and rural areas. The need to produce more and more rapidly and in greater quantity has contributed to the drop in air quality, especially in large urban centers. However, just as atmospheric pollution increases, the concern of scientists and environmentalists is also growing, in order to find ways to reduce air pollution.
The following is a series of measures that can help in combating the degradation of this natural resource essential to life:
- Establish clear boundaries for pollution levels in urban and rural environments;
- Once these levels are established, promote the daily and constant monitoring of air quality;
- Regulate the criteria for the emission of gaseous pollutants, as well as establish penalties for those who violate such limits;
- Reduce the use of agrochemicals and other agricultural chemical inputs, preferably choosing biological alternatives;
- Promote the conservation and expansion of forest areas, environmental reserves and natural environmental protection areas, as well as reforest degraded areas;
- Encourage the use of alternative transportation means to the car, as well as the implementation of quality collective transportation systems;
- Maintenance and creation of green areas in urban spaces, such as woods, squares, parks and green corridors;
- Encourage the use of instruments that minimize emissions of pollutants, such as automotive catalysts, filters in factories and plants, waste treatment, and others;
- Promote the control and inspection of fires in crops, pasture areas and in regions with natural vegetation cover.
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
On a semi-related note, I'm really impressed by Biden's plan. <3
On another semi-related note, I wish everyone would chill tf out with the "WE NEED TO MAKE RADICAL CHANGE ELSE WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN 10 YEARS" rhetoric. Here's why:
1. 70% of global emissions come from just 100 corporations. The idea that banning straws will offer any significant benefit to the environment is just a scapegoat to distract from that fact. The biggest change will come from less obvious shifts to consumer habits. Myzozoa gave a great example in making an effort to eat less meat.
2. America only produces 15% of global emissions. No matter what we do as a country, we can only do so much relatively to global emissions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it's just another reason to tone down the rhetoric and completely denouncing any plan that doesn't involve miraculously becoming carbon neutral by 2021.
3. Massive exaggerations discredit the movement more than they help it. If you make it seem like the world is going to end in 5 years and it doesn't, you lose a lot of credibility, and it adds fire to the conservative anti-climate machine. In fact, climate change deniers often cite the different "deadlines" that have been posed over the past few decades as evidence that it's all a myth. Plus, climatology (like many fields) isn't an exact science; opinions change as new facts are discovered, which is another factor that makes decisive claims risky to the credibility of the green movement.
While we're at it, the Green New Deal is garbage. This becomes pretty obvious when politicians have to give super evasive and non-specific answers when asked about why they support it. First and foremost, it's incredibly disingenuous to sneak major economic reforms into a climate bill, especially since any opposition to those additions is then dismissed as an anti-environment stance. Plus, the plan itself is incredibly vague and very short. Discounting the margins, you could probably fit the whole thing into a few pages. That's not an inherently bad thing, but people treat it as if it's a detailed, flawless piece of legislation instead of a set of potential goals, then they use that assumption to claim that you're a anti-environment corporate neoliberal centrist shill if you don't support it. The final nail in the coffin is the lack of a carbon tax and total dismissal of nuclear power.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
On another semi-related note, I wish everyone would chill tf out with the "WE NEED TO MAKE RADICAL CHANGE ELSE WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN 10 YEARS" rhetoric. Here's why:
1. 70% of global emissions come from just 100 corporations. The idea that banning straws will offer any significant benefit to the environment is just a scapegoat to distract from that fact. The biggest change will come from less obvious shifts to consumer habits. Myzozoa gave a great example in making an effort to eat less meat.
2. America only produces 15% of global emissions. No matter what we do as a country, we can only do so much relatively to global emissions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it's just another reason to tone down the rhetoric and completely denouncing any plan that doesn't involve miraculously becoming carbon neutral by 2021.
3. Massive exaggerations discredit the movement more than they help it. If you make it seem like the world is going to end in 5 years and it doesn't, you lose a lot of credibility, and it adds fire to the conservative anti-climate machine. In fact, climate change deniers often cite the different "deadlines" that have been posed over the past few decades as evidence that it's all a myth. Plus, climatology (like many fields) isn't an exact science; opinions change as new facts are discovered, which is another factor that makes decisive claims risky to the credibility of the green movement.
While we're at it, the Green New Deal is garbage. This becomes pretty obvious when politicians have to give super evasive and non-specific answers when asked about why they support it. First and foremost, it's incredibly disingenuous to sneak major economic reforms into a climate bill, especially since any opposition to those additions is then dismissed as an anti-environment stance. Plus, the plan itself is incredibly vague and very short. Discounting the margins, you could probably fit the whole thing into a few pages. That's not an inherently bad thing, but people treat it as if it's a detailed, flawless piece of legislation instead of a set of potential goals, then they use that assumption to claim that you're a anti-environment corporate neoliberal centrist shill if you don't support it. The final nail in the coffin is the lack of a carbon tax and total dismissal of nuclear power.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
I remember that another person said a similar argument, well. I understand what you are saying or trying to say, but what do you think about the discussions? Even if we can't change the world at all, at least any knowledge is appreciated, since we have a problem that is a junction of a lot of more problems that people don't know so much about, if you understand.
Couple of nitpicks
Well.. We might. I dunno if you have looked at the worst case scenarios, but they basically involve the deaths of billions.
The biggest change will come from government action. Like carbon taxes.
The current plan is to reduce global carbon emissions by 55% . Your 15% is a big chunk of that, and USA is the worlds biggest per capita emitter (at least out of any country that is particularly relevant---it wouldnt shock me if NZ was worse than you guys, but our emissions are really insignificant).
So lets play apocalypse chicken a little longer.
tried to avoid this thread but building on hips post:
just a reminder that even when taking into account current planned policies (i.e government commitments that have not yet happened yet) we still overshoot the 1.5C and 2C warming thresholds by some distance. read the IPCC SR15 which is about the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pre-industrial temps if you are interested in why this is important. don't forget, CO2 is relatively long-lived in the atmosphere and the carbon emitted today will continue to have a positive warming effect into the future. drastic change is actually needed, the quicker the better.
climate models are our best tool available and give a range of future predictions, most of them are usually bad. if our best tool says the most likely outcome is Not Good, a laissez-faire attitude is stupid at best and actively harmful at worst. worth noting that if you run these climate models using known data (i.e past conditions) they will very accurately match recorded temperatures for those periods. nobody is saying we can predict the future exactly.
we are rich, the impacts will not hit us the hardest
just a reminder that even when taking into account current planned policies (i.e government commitments that have not yet happened yet) we still overshoot the 1.5C and 2C warming thresholds by some distance. read the IPCC SR15 which is about the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pre-industrial temps if you are interested in why this is important. don't forget, CO2 is relatively long-lived in the atmosphere and the carbon emitted today will continue to have a positive warming effect into the future. drastic change is actually needed, the quicker the better.
climate models are our best tool available and give a range of future predictions, most of them are usually bad. if our best tool says the most likely outcome is Not Good, a laissez-faire attitude is stupid at best and actively harmful at worst. worth noting that if you run these climate models using known data (i.e past conditions) they will very accurately match recorded temperatures for those periods. nobody is saying we can predict the future exactly.
we are rich, the impacts will not hit us the hardest
As much as CO2 is extremely important to our human life, moreover, it is the reason for our living on the planet. Well, it does not become enough for us to prevail with a good state in the future. I particularly disagree with many of the statements made here, but they are opinions that must be respected. Nature is the main realm where we take out the raw material and use it for basically everything in our lives, unfortunately the more the factories and industries insist on removing it so aggressively, we will be totally harmed by it. We may be intelligent, but if it were not so serious, there would be no campaign against deforestation, global warming. Recently, students from the UK have been protesting the streets against global warming as they have experienced the hottest summer of their lives. Of course we will not realize the impacts of the night, and of course not everyone is responsible for this, but in fact there is no denying that in the face of nature, we can not have a concrete prediction about what may happen in the future , maybe in a week for now.
no one will ever convince me to care about the environment enough to stop eating meat and using shit like plastic straws. i'm not saying don't go for it if that's what ur into, but i personally don't think it's worth it. if ur gonna go out u might as well do it with a bang.
why waste ur time worrying and stressing urself out about climate change & the environment? get out there and enjoy it while u can. the climate is changing, the earths getting hotter & it's a crazy time to be alive. i'm sure we all have enough to worry about in our own lives without adding another problem into the mix.
good luck to everyone out there though. hope u all live to be happy and if u wanna do ur best to save the environment don't let me hold u back. i'm not tryna be anti environment or w/e i just love consuming things i guess.
why waste ur time worrying and stressing urself out about climate change & the environment? get out there and enjoy it while u can. the climate is changing, the earths getting hotter & it's a crazy time to be alive. i'm sure we all have enough to worry about in our own lives without adding another problem into the mix.
good luck to everyone out there though. hope u all live to be happy and if u wanna do ur best to save the environment don't let me hold u back. i'm not tryna be anti environment or w/e i just love consuming things i guess.
It is no use to stop eating meat if fruits, vegetables and receive an extreme amount of pesticides.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If meat is cultivated less, then that means far less food being grown solely for meat animals (which is a lot more inefficient than eating it ourselves)—and less pesticide use in this example.