I agree that cruise ships shoud be banned. But this math can't be right. 18% of all emissions woud mean that these 60 ships produce at least 35% of all Oil product emissions if we assume Global oil usage produeces 50% of all emissions. But it really falls apart when you ask yourself what the other 50000+ cargo ships are using then. They woud use a simmilar fuel and there are only 65% of Oil emissions left.
Yes. And I understand he hesitation about geoengineering but that sulfur stuff has been (inadvertendly) proven for decades and time is running out fast. Later measures means much bigger, more impactful measures and that's risky, too.
That's just the classic auto industry propaganda : cherry pick one specific pollutant that has nothing to do with climate change and point out another activity that is way worse regarding this pollutant.
Sulfur emissions might have actually helped the climate instead of hurting it (not talking about acid rain etc. but climate is the most pressing issue, some might argue). So that makes this post even worse than you already pointed out.
Tbf the article was an eu today one so they very likely could have left out a lot of stuff, including why they only focused on 60 cruise ships, however from US/CAD stats as well, that high of an emission count seems to be the standard due to how frequently cruise ships run.
Hijacking the top comment bring in another sub favorite:
If we made cruise ships nuclear they’d be emissions free (I think).
This doesn’t fix all the other issues with them
Probably because doing that would be prohibitively expensive and offer literally not a single benefit for the operator and because dealing with the nuclear material would be a legal, logistical and paper work hell
I think I saw an engineering video about one of those once and if I remember correctly it wasn't because it was commercially unviable, but it was ultimately shut down because of public outcry
EDIT: Found the video https://youtu.be/cYj4F_cyiJI?si=gh2FSVXE2HrYDYGD
Well there's your problem did a recent episode on them, the bigger problem is the nature of shipping.
Who's responsible when a reactor goes fuck?
We cannot even properly blame people when they end up blowing up Beirut.
>Probably because doing that would be prohibitively expensive
I don't think it would be that much more expensive, when looking at a 20 year span.
>because dealing with the nuclear material would be a legal, logistical and paper work hell
True.
we made a concept one in the 60s that ran for a decade and was profitable. it wasn't expanded upon because bunker oil was a little cheaper. if we had made new designs after designed specifically as cruise vessels or shipping vessels they would have been even better. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS\_Savannah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah)
I'm simply explaining why it hasn't occurred under the current regulation. I'm sure if enough countries got together, they could make this a reality but I doubt they will because giving nuclear material to a bunch of badly regulated, shady companies with dubious business practices that operate in international waters is insane. Please take your rose tinted glasses off for a second, we're not gonna turn the world into nuclear punk
Normal powerplants use low enriched uranium (>20% U235) which isn't weapongrade and needs further treatment.
Ship reactors use highly enriched uranium (~80% U235)
Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of nuclear power, but I don't think there's a way anyone's gonna greenlight that, just security on a ship made for drunken tourists is gonna be hell
Yeah, but it's not like cruise ships visit or cross the waters of any tropical and less-than-democratic states that have are interested in getting their hands on these materials, right?
I've been thinking this for a while about container ships. It's been proven by this point that nuclear ships can be safe if you have the budget and discipline. Whether shipping companies could achieve this is an open question I suppose, sail would be sick too
The main problem with that, like with all industries, is that they dont \*want\* to do that, so they need to be forced, and the current surge of conserv govts popping up around the world that are against hurting daddy capitalism means that its gonna get even harder to force them. Thats why my comment on here talk about some ways to do so for Europe, as many port towns are banning cruise ships, which robs them of their tourism bucks, and tells them they need to change.
More than anything my point with this is that there's no magic solution, but that many plans such as this, are far more feasible than the magic "blame meat eating for all our problems" that many grifters tend to latch onto.
Political action is needed first and foremost. Thats why when i talk about agriculture as well, my focus isnt on one thing, such as the idealistic and frankly moronic idea of pushing billions to go to a vegan diet, but rather on making people aware of pushes for larger systemic changes to how we produce \*all\* food, and how the current methods (yes even for vegan foods) are harmful to our planet, thanks to over consumption and over production found in modern consumer culture. Many nations already are looking to address wasteful production and reduce carbon footprints, frankly agricultures been the most progressive for this across the board.
You'll have more success selling Veganism if you don't turn Veganism into a single issue problem.
I for example care fairly little about animals. "Animal cruelty" arguments just don't interest me.
The reason why I use a lot mroe vegan products nowadays is because of other factors, environmentalism being part of it.
Thats a fair point. There recently also was a Netflix show on an Experiment with twins, where one had to go vegan and the other kept eating meat and they talked a lot about health benefits.
Of course nutrition is an important part and it's more difficult when being vegan, but it seems that many illnesses can be prevented or even partially cured by removing meat from the diet. Sadly the Focus was mainly on the meat part, not so much on the side product part. Would be interesting to know how good or bad it is to consume all of that
Depends on if i know them or not. Same with animals. Sure pepole dying at the other end if the world is tragic and all, but i know non of those ppl and can do nothing to change teir fate, so why unnecessarly weigh down my mind with it. So pretty much like most pepole.
So you don't do what you think is universaly right but instead deliberatly choose to fall into your personal biases. Don't you think it's a weird position ?
Da fuck do you want me to do? Im not a politican or a CEO, i cant do shit beyond what im already doing for unrelated reason( cutting out meat of my diet and political activism).
Sure, it totally sucks that a lot of animals are having a really bad time, but i have only so much time and energy and i really think their are some more important issues. I wpuld very much like to not be deported by a Nazi goverment for being queer, so keeping them out of power is kinda my top priority rn
I don't "want you to do" anything, i'm just questioning the reasons that leads you to your moral values (and this "depends if i know them" rule). And the far-right isn't known for its fight against animal exploitation, so very different moral values obviously leads to the same actions in practice : i'm not criticizing you.
Also, are you from France ?
No, im not French, why do you ask?
Alright let me explain a bit more: My family has a dog. I have an emotional bond with her and if anything where to happen to her i woukd be very upset. This i have motivation to prevent bad things from happening.
Now compare that to the avrage sloughter house pig. I dont know it, i have no emotional conection and i wouldent be upset at all if it died, becouse i would never know it happend. I might hear about how bad those pigs have it, but it wont emotoly impact me fir more than 2 minutes. Thus i have very littel otivation to stop this compared to protecting the dog i know. Espacily with so much bad shit happening evreyday it jist becomes another bad thing from the news.
If i had an oppertunety to stop stuff like this from happening i would ofcourse do it. However i have other things i think are bigger problems and focus on solving then first.
I dont think thats that abnormal of a viewpoint and morality
We have what i would call a "urgent nazi problem" in France right now.
Thank you for clarifying your point of view. I don't think it's abnormal in any way but it seems pretty rare to me to confortable with this : most people who don't care because they don't have the will/strength to do so will try to find a justification for their choice, even if they weren't able to make another choice.
I've never been called a murder by a vegan. Although I am also:
1. Not a crow or in a group of crows
2. Someone who does not eat innocent animals or their excretions
To be fair, I 100% Support veganism and think everyone should be vegan, but vegan forums on the Internet, Reddit included, show the absolute worst sides of the Community and they really Stick together with the lunatics.
I'm often times not surprised how much hate vegans get.
Of course the mature thing would be keeping the lunatics and the morals apart and chosing to do good even though some specimen of the movement are completely deranged, but most people just arent that mature.
As an example, a while back there was a video about some guy defending a hedgehog from two Kids who tortured/kicked it. Instead of being happy the guy did that, the whole post and all comments were about how hyppcritical the guy probably is because he probably eats meat or animal products. They would have rather have him "Pick a Side". They dont understand that "torturing an animal for fun" and "eating meat because you are used to it and simply dont feel as guilty as you probably should" are not on the same level.
Unfortunately mentioning this in an information war usually does more harm than good.
Try rallying millions of people against a complex issue or group of issues (climate change, global warming, pollution, etc), with not one but several different solutions that all need equal amounts of attention. People will not all zero in on the same solution, which makes disinformation/redirection campaigns by companies extremely impactful.
The climate movement needs a clear and defined goal, with clear and defined means to accomplish this goal. Work towards rallying the movement rather than just stating the obvious.
This is literally the same for all individual action, so i really hope you're pushing collective action hard if you can't be bothered to make any tiny changes for yourself.
Why? What's the point if the ships are still there after your prostests? If your donations dont stop all the cars being made right now? Furthermore, if your donations are small, don't bother there's no point in any small changes we try to do like you say as long as these emitters are still out there. Also, you say people complain about diets is that not literally your "meme" just in the other direction?
These protests do work, many places have successfully banned these ships from docking, causing loss of profit's and shorter voyages due to that. Additionally political actions not just for that, but also larger systemic changes, as thats whats needed first and foremost.
As for volunteer work, thats something i'd do even with different overarching circumstances, because cleaning polluted waterways is important and doesn't get enough govt support.
Ships are still there, tho so they haven't worked have they? And shorter voyages just means voyages more often surely? And you dont think rewilding and biodiversity increasing is important work too that you could do whether it helped the climate or not? My point is not you're doing rubbish but that everything you do is as useful as going vegan which you complain about. So if you dont want to go vegan for the reasons stated then you shouldn't bother doing anything or you can just admit you dont want to be vegan cos you're too selfish and lazy to care about animals or the impact agriculture has on more than just the climate.
Just want to reiterate. I think the work you are doing is great, but it's just a disingenuous argument you're making you're comment about water pollution is literally an argument for being vegan with no counter argument for it other than "but i like meat too much".
The big oil talking point was that we should all be aware of our own personal carbon footprint, and ignore that even if we allllll ate less meat and biked to work more often (etc etc) it wouldn't fix the climate but it would distract us from going after the people who are wrecking it.
Meat consumption is part of the real problem. Animal agriculture causes 1/6 of all global emissions. Even if we stop ALL OTHER EMISSIONS but don't go vegan we won't stop climate change.
I've found a source for the sulphur claim. But nothing for anything else, where do you get the 18% figure from?
Sulphur mentioned here
https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/europes-luxury-cruise-ships-emit-as-much-toxic-sulphur-as-1bn-cars-study
The data on greenhouse gas emissions shows ALL aviation and shipping at least that a quarter than agriculture, and this doesn't factor in land use which would increase the gap even more.
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
Edit: missed a word.
This reminds me of the time someone asked me “how is raising the minimum wage gonna solve all our problems” after I advocated for raising the minimum wage once
The difference between 15$ MINIMUM vs a 7.25 minimum is quite literally the difference between me being able to live without my parents or not, this is massively beneficial immediately to a huge sector of people + drastically and easily fixes ALOT of problems.
Beyond the absolute nothing that me personally going vegan does, if EVERYONE went vegan it'd make less of an impact the cruise ships do, and that's a hypothetical that will literally never happen.
If everyone went vegan it would astronomically outweigh the impact of cruise ships. Like the comparison is so much of a joke in the first place that you should feel embarrassed
That’s not the most relevant component
That doesn’t meet the dude’s requirement of “solves all problems” and the real thing to focus on is that nobody had actually said raising the minimum wage would solve all our problems.
Going vegan won’t solve all our problems, and neither would completely mitigating the damage cruise ships do, but both of them would be positive changes.
It absolutely is when talking about the effect it has and how easy it is to implement lol.
The positive change of a 15 minimum wage is significantly greater then the veganism for climate movement.
The the point isn’t that it will have any positive impact, or how hard it is.
The point is that it won’t fix everything, and if that’s your standard then you can declare everything insufficient
This is dumb for a number of reasons.
Firstly this isn't really an argument for why going vegan is pointless its and argument for banning cruise ships.
Secondly cruise ships might be owned by a small percent of people but they're used by a significantly larger amount of people since they're comercial vehicles not private pleasure cruisers so pinning it all on the people who own it is a little bit stupid, since the same thing applies to animal agriculture and most big industries in general.
Thridly animal agriculture acountd for somewhere between 11-17% of global emissions the cruise ship industry almost certainly doesn't come anywhere close to that so yeah everyone going vegan would probably help more than nobody using cruise ships.
Can we stop dick measuring the “best” ways to address the climate crisis vs things that are “pointless” by comparison, and just agree we need to do as much as we possibly can of EVERYTHING to even have a chance here?
There’s 0 chance we get everyone to be vegan. There’s 0 chance we stop everything driving. There’s 0 chance we ban all cruise ships. Calling for such things is simplistic.
We need to ADAPT the underlying systems that support our ways of life to give ourselves a shot.
Mal mit der us Politik aktuell beschäftigt?
Geht nie um Lösungen, immer nur um signaling und abgrenzen vom Gegner.
Und das infiziert aktuell alle Bereiche des Lebens. Gibt nur noch schwarz und weiß :(
Veganism in itself is a good move, the reduction of products stemming from cows specifically is also already really good in itself if we are speaking about environmental impact but it’s clear that none of this will fully weigh up to the impact certain mega corporations have on the environment. There is ultimately only so much you can do on your own before you have to move on to protesting more complex issues as a community and the focus on this sub is definitely on the former rather than the latter, when achieving a balance between the two topics should actually be the goal.
That and its impossible to make billions go vegan, culturally and socially its impossible and your likely to just get violent pushback.
Contrary to what some may want to say, I'm not against people ***choosing*** to go vegan, and m someone that pushes for and wants a cleaner, smaller, and more humane (based on indigenous animal treatment) meat industry, and just an overall less toxic culture around consumption. What I'm against is grifters using environmental fears and false fear mongering to hijack channel of discussion to make the choice a magic bullet and diets a sole proprietor of all problems, that does nothing but distract from activism that could happen and make finding true information on current action harder. A vegan sitting doing nothing is more harmful to our planet than a meat eater that goes out, volunteers, donates and works for political action and systemic change and vise versa.
Heck probably should have put the flair as "discussion" a thats more so why this post was made, to actually have discussion on this rather than the normal "calling people rapists, murderers, and fascists" from all sides that most vegan threads here become. (though that hasnt stopped some... creative people in my DMs)
> to actually have discussion on this rather than the normal "calling people rapists, murderers, and fascists"
I see enough people with valid arguments but all you say is "acutally you cant feed every human with a plant diet because of culture bla bla bla" or you just dont interact with them at all.
You want a discussion only to bring the same shitty argument over and over again? How am I suppose to counter that?
"Yes stick to your destructive culture. Even if it means the end of all cultures in 100 years"
"The planet is doomed forever but I had a culture." Thats a win in your eyes?
> A vegan sitting doing nothing is more harmful to our planet than a meat eater that goes out, volunteers, donates and works for political action and systemic change and vise versa.
You are describing yourself as the optimal living standard.
Doesnt seem narcissistic at all :D you can be a vegan and do everything you listed.
Btw 1kg of beef uses 13.000 liters of water. A 4 headed family could live 4 years off of that. Not even mentioning the forest that is burned down for fields. Your fields, to feed the fcking animal, instead of yourself directly.
Narcissistic meat eaters are my favourites. Irreparably disconnect from reality and actual facts, calling themself the optimal human being.
Fuck. You.
Title so about cars, image is about diet.
These are not the same.
If everyone just stopped eating only beef today that could cut one-third of all methane emissions and two-thirds of all nitrous oxide emissions.
It’s literally such a massive polluter. Just eat chicken or something.
Imagine if there were still fools who believed that we had a choice about what we reduce. It's not as if CO2 neutrality means that we have to reduce everything.
Becoming vegan is compulsory, it's not possible without it, everything else is hypocrisy, that others have to take on the burden for you.
right its not like we have good stats on how this isnt a problem of individuals but of corporations, dont worry im sure daddy capitalisms so proud of your for defending it.
Oh also veg and alternative food production still causes pollution and eco-system destruction and the best way forwards to actually yknow work on industry wide changes on how we produce food as a whole, something actually feesble, not based solely on "meat bad >:{", but yknow- inconvenient truth that grifters hate.
This is like saying the earths cooked whether we keep it under 2 degrees or 4 degrees warming, as if there's no difference. Which is frankly insane, even with the feedback mechanisms baked into climate change.
There is a huge difference in whether some humans can adapt and survive, and making the planet completely inhospitable, as well as the timeframes it'd take to reengineer habitats, fight for sustainability.
Going vegan is like transitioning from fossil fuels. Maybe even moreso than that transition, its one of the easiest, laziest ways to bring emissions down. That's why it should be a priority, while we work on the harder stuff (like emissions in construction).
"According to their calculations the global livestock industry is responsible for **at least 51% of the greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere** and the amount of carbon dioxide is estimated at 32,564 million tons."
For real though, cruise ships are an actual threat an have largely gone un-talked about here like many issues, there are numerous resources to look at for different countries, if you are in Europe in a port city, its very likely that your city has a petition for banning cruise ships all together, sign these, and go protest.
News story talking about some parts of Europe that have banned or are considering banning cruise ships as a quick resource: [Which European cities are trying to cut back the number of cruise ship visits? | Euronews](https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/05/13/cruise-ships-erosion-air-pollution-and-overtourism-are-driving-cities-towards-bans)
From the article
>Lorna Slater, Scottish Green co-leader, also said that she hoped the cruise tax would encourage companies to use less polluting vessels, claiming one ship produces the same emissions as 12,000 cars.
60 ships according to title -> 720k cars
I agree that we should completely get rid of cruise ships, but your math isn't mathing (at least on the CO2 side of this post).
Sulfur emissions from ships have recent dropped quite a lot, due to new guidelines on shipping pollution. This is extremely good from a health perspective. However, sulfur had a cloud seeding / cooling effect, which is likely contributing to why we now have higher ocean temperatures after its decrease. [Source](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/)
Framing this as "CO2 and SO2 from Ships equals cars", without clarification that cars produce very little sulfur emissions (11k tons in the united states, 2023 [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1234986/road-transportation-sulfur-dioxide-emissions-us/)) seems pretty disingenuous to me.
Edit: grammar / formatting
Fun fact: the crisis is caused by much more than carbon and sulfur emissions. Animal agriculture is number one in water use, water pollution, habitat destruction and viruses. It also is responsible for the torture of trillions of sentient animals everyday. And heart disease! It is also the EASIEST thing to avoid for most individuals. Quit being a fucking pussy and take some responsibility.
My choice was to work in a career that actually matters and has a positive verifiable effect, to that end I do more on an annual basis then any choices you have made over an entire lifetime. Don’t get all high and mighty on me in terms of making better choices until you can show a lot more effort then a single person giving up meat based diet.
And vegetation agricultures responsible for the destruction of marine life thanks to fertilizer runoff, the loss of top soils, the destruction of entire species of animals due to farm expansion, ecosystem destruction, and also causes equally high emissions as most farms do not use electric machines. Thats without even talking about food packaging which is fucking atrocious no matter the diet. But yknow , vegan grifters don actually care about any of this, they'll change the grift once this one stops working.
But i'm sure you care "so much"
The vast majority of "vegetation agriculture" is used to feed livestock animals. A plant based diet uses far less plants than an animal based diet. It's actually disgusting how you try to blame vegans for the shit animal ag is causing so you can justify torturing animals.
Earth if we abolish cruise ships but change nothing about our everyday lifestyles: still on fire. Nobody has ever claimed that veganism was the sole solution for everything. But veganism is a necessary part of every holistic solution.
There's actually quite a bit of debate that if you consider carbon capture potential (milk drinkers are very scared of this term so be careful), that animal agriculture is the most damaging industry in the world.
Is that an ad for a training course on ecology ?
"Don't want to look like this stupid ass ? Buy our book right now and understand how not to fall for automotive propaganda !"
Yeah, but there are VEGAN CRUISES! So there! [https://www.vegan-cruises.com/](https://www.vegan-cruises.com/)
I especially love that they advertise with being "sustainable".
This shows a lack of understanding of the climate cycle. The focus on emissions is a distraction. The real threat to our environment is the destruction of our carbon sinks. Ie, the forests and the oceans. If we had all the forests back, and the oceans were healthy again, they would easily absorb all the CO2 we are emitting today. But since we have destroyed a huge portion of our carbon sinks, emissions do cause the CO2 levels to rise.
The number one cause of both deforestation and ocean ecology imbalance is animal agriculture.
You’d have to raze the forest for agriculture if the entire population switched to a vegan diet. So still in same boat and that doesn’t include the increased mining of phosphorus, and potassium nor the enormous increase in energy required for “fixing” nitrogen.
What? You haven’t thought this out and it shows. 80% of the plants humans grow in agriculture are consumed by the animals used for meat with a loss of around 95% of the energy.
Dude, if you want to debate a position, at least spend a few minutes thinking about it before writing a post making yourself look completely ignorant and unable to question your own dogma.
What’s wrong with being ignorant of certain area of a topic? You use that as an insult when it shouldn’t be. Thanks for the information, do you have any sources for the 80% and 95% numbers?
My dogma, that you look down on, is a realistic balance of resources with best practices to ensure the best quality of life for the current and future population. It requires a strategic plan based on verifiable data. I haven’t seen anything resembling that requirement from the vegan community.
Being ignorant is fine. Being ignorant of your own argument is not.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://cbey.yale.edu/our-stories/disrupting-meat#:~:text=Meat%20makes%20for%20curious%20math,just%201%20calorie%20of%20beef.
Ok, so where are they talking about the amount of land that would be used if the entire population changed to a vegan diet after accounting for the gains in farmland no longer growing food specifically for livestock? Our current usage of fertilizer is absolutely unsustainable and there needs to be significant reduction. How does a vegan only diet meet that need?
I did notice a significant point in the article I found pretty interesting:
“The large variability in environmental impact from different farms does present an opportunity for reducing the harm, Poore said, without needing the global population to become vegan. If the most harmful half of meat and dairy production was replaced by plant-based food, this still delivers about two-thirds of the benefits of getting rid of all meat and dairy production.”
We can gain 2/3 of the benefits by reducing meat and dairy production by half. That sounds like a great strategy to start from and way more realistic than vegan only diet.
To be fair if you put a nuclear reactor in the cruise ships it would kill a huge amount of air pollution (gonna just ignore the risks associated with that many STDs being in close proximity to a nuclear reactor)
HEY THERE, YEAH YOU
Let's FUCKING END THE BICKERING AND END CRUISES FOREVER. THAT BLOATED INDUSTRY DESERVES TO DIE. THEYVE NEVER PAID A CENT OF TAXES AND WE REALLY DONT NEED FLOATING HOTEL CASINOS WHO THE FUCK THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
tbf the entire concept of private jets disgusts me, they serve no actual purpose other than as vanity toys for capitalists, put them on the chopping block first.
These numbers seem weird. If 60 cruiseships make up that high a percentage, how many cargoships could there possibly be in the world? Am I missing something here?
My assumption was that environmentalist’s ideology overlap in compassion and reduction of greed with vegans but a lot of environmentalists strive to disprove that notion
if it was about reduction of greed than vegans here would be calling for changes to all food production, rather than spreading missinformaton abut food production emissions and blaming only one part of an industry wide problem. Its just a grift.
Additionally the discussion on compassion largely comes down to individuals, someone that eats meat isnt inherently more or less compassionate, someone whos vegan isnt inherently more or less compassionate.
I fucking hate the tactics that vegans use on this sub. They think that being smug or otherwise pretentious will make people switch their diet. Maybe if you were supportive people would come around to you...
I support you in meaningfully reducing your consumption of animal products in anyway you can.
I took multiple years to actually go fully vegan from when I started reducing
And I appreciate that. The people I am referring to are in this thread shitting on me for not being 100% vegan because 1 gram of meat makes you as bad as an oil executive or something. People in this sub think that for multiple years your efforts were laugh worthy and pointless and that you should be were you are now back then. Can you see how that's off putting?
Dude you don't have to go vegan at once you can reduce and be vegetarian. There's a lot of posts of supportive vegan or vegetarian who gives recipe and tips. I can give you some if you want
Ofc, but this subreddit doesn't have them. I am working to gradually reduce, but this sub is often the complete opposite of that through many of the comments and posts
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnuku0/comment/la8vneh/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnuku0/comment/la8vneh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Literally someone on this sub who is saying that your advice is wrong. This is what I am talking about, the people who say that reducing meat is the same as being a conscious "anti-vegan"
You missunderstood if you reduce your consumption with the purpose of baning meat within the 2-3 years it's ok.
If you juste reduce like you eat a chicken Burgen instead of a beef burger and that's all, then your not an environmentalist
Oh so the Supportive vegans must BE in this room for you to Go vegan? Or won't you Go vegan because a vegan in this sub was mean to you?
Maybe they climate crisis would already BE solved If the climate activists hadn't been that mean
He did implicitly state it in the first comment, because else he would have specified "some" or "most" vegans. In the last sentence he used "Maybe if you were supportive..." instead of "if we".
And before writing my second comment he stated here [https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnuku0/comment/la8c8mu/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnuku0/comment/la8c8mu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
that he "is working to reduce" which first means he isn't vegan and secondly means he isn't planning on going vegan.
And btw i know that you aren't vegan because you stated it here [https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnz5l6/comment/la8n380/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnz5l6/comment/la8n380/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) so don't try bullshit on me.
>He did implicitly state it in the first comment
No he didn't.
And if he's "working to reduce", that is literally working in the direction of veganism. You should be happy about that, but instead you're more interested in gatekeeping.
>And btw i know that you aren't vegan because you stated it here
Why are we talking about me all of a sudden? I never claimed to be vegan. Don't change the subject.
I just explained why he implicitly stated it. But maybe you are to stupid and all you can offer as a response is "no he didn't".
If you would know what veganism is, you wouldn't stay such stupid shit. Veganism is the philosophy to end the exploitation of all animals whenever practial and possible. If you plan to reduce, you don't want to end exploitation, you plan on doing a little bit less exploitation.
I just like to name things the way they are. If someone says "Maybe in the future i will reduce the number of my slaves" hi isn't an abolitionist and not isn't working on being an abolitionist.
And I am not happy about people that "work on reduce". I wouldn't be happy if someone would work on reducing the amount of beating me up, Every time beating me up is one time to many.
>I just explained why he implicitly stated it
You're just gaslighting, dude.
>If you plan to reduce, you don't want to end exploitation, you plan on doing a little bit less exploitation.
You're proving my point. This isn't about you trying to support veganism, this is about you wanting to gatekeep.
Basic english grammar = gaslighting
It is ridicolus that we even talk about veganism here, as it is necessary. If you don't go vegan you are either stupid or selfish.
And the fuck do you know about supporting veganism? You don't even know what it is, yet want to explain me how to make others vegans.
Unironically, yes. Social movements as a whole need to stop alienating people from their causes, especially vegans. Can you explain why being a dick is more likely for someone to see your POV? And no I'm against direct action/eco-terrorism or whatever, but I do think that a diversity of tactics is necessary for people to be on your side. Just maybe stop being a dick and trying to gate keep you ideology.
Do you think i was born a vegan? Spoiler: I wasn't as most vegans weren't.
So basically every vegan once wasn't vegan and did have experiences that made them vegan. For me it was a talk of Mark Benecke about the climate and that being vegan is a necessity if we want to save our life on this planet. It took as long as the talk to go from someone who doesn't care what he eats to a vegan. And it was easy. It was so easy that i would call it fcking free.
So why shouldn't i do what helped me to become vegan?
And the time is up for baby steps.
I agree that cruise ships shoud be banned. But this math can't be right. 18% of all emissions woud mean that these 60 ships produce at least 35% of all Oil product emissions if we assume Global oil usage produeces 50% of all emissions. But it really falls apart when you ask yourself what the other 50000+ cargo ships are using then. They woud use a simmilar fuel and there are only 65% of Oil emissions left.
They are only equal in sulfur emissions. The trick is lying.
Is that before or after the ban on high sulfur fuel last or this year? I remember reading something like this i the news.
Does it really matter? It is only true because cars got way better with sulphur over the last decades.
It woud show that ships are also getting better with it.
Since theyre talking about 2022, Id assume that these numbers are before the ban
Before.It also wasn’t last year but in 2020. All those numbers are wrong. https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Sulphur-2020.aspx
Turns out, the sulfur emisions might have been the best thing about this whole industry.
Yeah. maybe my memory is wrong but didn't they have a cooling effect. And we are now catching back up with warming?
Yes. And I understand he hesitation about geoengineering but that sulfur stuff has been (inadvertendly) proven for decades and time is running out fast. Later measures means much bigger, more impactful measures and that's risky, too.
That's just the classic auto industry propaganda : cherry pick one specific pollutant that has nothing to do with climate change and point out another activity that is way worse regarding this pollutant.
Sulfur emissions might have actually helped the climate instead of hurting it (not talking about acid rain etc. but climate is the most pressing issue, some might argue). So that makes this post even worse than you already pointed out.
Tbf the article was an eu today one so they very likely could have left out a lot of stuff, including why they only focused on 60 cruise ships, however from US/CAD stats as well, that high of an emission count seems to be the standard due to how frequently cruise ships run.
Can you share the link of the article ?
We need to do multiple things if we want the planet to be habitable for us. Shocking.
Hijacking the top comment bring in another sub favorite: If we made cruise ships nuclear they’d be emissions free (I think). This doesn’t fix all the other issues with them
Fallout vibes right there lmao
I think it's weird that we don't have nuclear cruise ships, Military and some other special ships have been doing it for decades.
Probably because doing that would be prohibitively expensive and offer literally not a single benefit for the operator and because dealing with the nuclear material would be a legal, logistical and paper work hell
I think I saw an engineering video about one of those once and if I remember correctly it wasn't because it was commercially unviable, but it was ultimately shut down because of public outcry EDIT: Found the video https://youtu.be/cYj4F_cyiJI?si=gh2FSVXE2HrYDYGD
I'm not surprised. "We're gonna give shady companies with dubious operating practices nuclear material" can't exactly be an easy sell
Shady companies with dubious operating practices that travel across international maritime borders as a matter of course. What could go wrong?
Well there's your problem did a recent episode on them, the bigger problem is the nature of shipping. Who's responsible when a reactor goes fuck? We cannot even properly blame people when they end up blowing up Beirut.
Ban fertilizer!
>Probably because doing that would be prohibitively expensive I don't think it would be that much more expensive, when looking at a 20 year span. >because dealing with the nuclear material would be a legal, logistical and paper work hell True.
we made a concept one in the 60s that ran for a decade and was profitable. it wasn't expanded upon because bunker oil was a little cheaper. if we had made new designs after designed specifically as cruise vessels or shipping vessels they would have been even better. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS\_Savannah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah)
No economic benefit for the operator is the main reason. Polluting is cheaper ? Let's pollute.
I'm simply explaining why it hasn't occurred under the current regulation. I'm sure if enough countries got together, they could make this a reality but I doubt they will because giving nuclear material to a bunch of badly regulated, shady companies with dubious business practices that operate in international waters is insane. Please take your rose tinted glasses off for a second, we're not gonna turn the world into nuclear punk
Pretty sure operators are mainly money driven regardless of the observer's political opinion...
I really can't see anything wrong with a cruise ship that has highly enriched weapongrade uranium on board....
You mean the same they use in any nuclear power plant? Why would that be an issue on a cruise ship.
Normal powerplants use low enriched uranium (>20% U235) which isn't weapongrade and needs further treatment. Ship reactors use highly enriched uranium (~80% U235) Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of nuclear power, but I don't think there's a way anyone's gonna greenlight that, just security on a ship made for drunken tourists is gonna be hell
Yeah, but it's not like cruise ships visit or cross the waters of any tropical and less-than-democratic states that have are interested in getting their hands on these materials, right?
Also a nuclear powerplant usually only let's qualified people in I assume, whereas a cruise ship is famously full of drunk idiots
If we mad cruise ships nuclear it would fix the issue with the people on them
I've been thinking this for a while about container ships. It's been proven by this point that nuclear ships can be safe if you have the budget and discipline. Whether shipping companies could achieve this is an open question I suppose, sail would be sick too
Hijacking your hijack to plug a great podcast that recently did an episode on a nuclear cruise ship https://youtu.be/GaotS4ndAIs?si=c_nHgQ-nelCQBopB
The main problem with that, like with all industries, is that they dont \*want\* to do that, so they need to be forced, and the current surge of conserv govts popping up around the world that are against hurting daddy capitalism means that its gonna get even harder to force them. Thats why my comment on here talk about some ways to do so for Europe, as many port towns are banning cruise ships, which robs them of their tourism bucks, and tells them they need to change. More than anything my point with this is that there's no magic solution, but that many plans such as this, are far more feasible than the magic "blame meat eating for all our problems" that many grifters tend to latch onto. Political action is needed first and foremost. Thats why when i talk about agriculture as well, my focus isnt on one thing, such as the idealistic and frankly moronic idea of pushing billions to go to a vegan diet, but rather on making people aware of pushes for larger systemic changes to how we produce \*all\* food, and how the current methods (yes even for vegan foods) are harmful to our planet, thanks to over consumption and over production found in modern consumer culture. Many nations already are looking to address wasteful production and reduce carbon footprints, frankly agricultures been the most progressive for this across the board.
Pretty great in terms of safety because a runaway reactor would automatically tkae care of itself.
Ontop of that: veganism isnt mostly about environmental effects (although thats great too). It's about ending animal suffering/cruelty.
You'll have more success selling Veganism if you don't turn Veganism into a single issue problem. I for example care fairly little about animals. "Animal cruelty" arguments just don't interest me. The reason why I use a lot mroe vegan products nowadays is because of other factors, environmentalism being part of it.
Thats a fair point. There recently also was a Netflix show on an Experiment with twins, where one had to go vegan and the other kept eating meat and they talked a lot about health benefits. Of course nutrition is an important part and it's more difficult when being vegan, but it seems that many illnesses can be prevented or even partially cured by removing meat from the diet. Sadly the Focus was mainly on the meat part, not so much on the side product part. Would be interesting to know how good or bad it is to consume all of that
I dont give a shit about anamals. I just thing meat production is very inefficant and thus unacceptbale
Same
Yeah fuck anamals ! We need to stop breading them.
Genuine question, do you care about humans?
Depends on if i know them or not. Same with animals. Sure pepole dying at the other end if the world is tragic and all, but i know non of those ppl and can do nothing to change teir fate, so why unnecessarly weigh down my mind with it. So pretty much like most pepole.
So you don't do what you think is universaly right but instead deliberatly choose to fall into your personal biases. Don't you think it's a weird position ?
Da fuck do you want me to do? Im not a politican or a CEO, i cant do shit beyond what im already doing for unrelated reason( cutting out meat of my diet and political activism). Sure, it totally sucks that a lot of animals are having a really bad time, but i have only so much time and energy and i really think their are some more important issues. I wpuld very much like to not be deported by a Nazi goverment for being queer, so keeping them out of power is kinda my top priority rn
I don't "want you to do" anything, i'm just questioning the reasons that leads you to your moral values (and this "depends if i know them" rule). And the far-right isn't known for its fight against animal exploitation, so very different moral values obviously leads to the same actions in practice : i'm not criticizing you. Also, are you from France ?
No, im not French, why do you ask? Alright let me explain a bit more: My family has a dog. I have an emotional bond with her and if anything where to happen to her i woukd be very upset. This i have motivation to prevent bad things from happening. Now compare that to the avrage sloughter house pig. I dont know it, i have no emotional conection and i wouldent be upset at all if it died, becouse i would never know it happend. I might hear about how bad those pigs have it, but it wont emotoly impact me fir more than 2 minutes. Thus i have very littel otivation to stop this compared to protecting the dog i know. Espacily with so much bad shit happening evreyday it jist becomes another bad thing from the news. If i had an oppertunety to stop stuff like this from happening i would ofcourse do it. However i have other things i think are bigger problems and focus on solving then first. I dont think thats that abnormal of a viewpoint and morality
We have what i would call a "urgent nazi problem" in France right now. Thank you for clarifying your point of view. I don't think it's abnormal in any way but it seems pretty rare to me to confortable with this : most people who don't care because they don't have the will/strength to do so will try to find a justification for their choice, even if they weren't able to make another choice.
the vegans told me that reducing my beef intake makes me a rapist and a murderer
Are the vegans in the room with us now?
yes
Oh cmon it's a very common experience to be called a murder by a vegan that's absolutely a possible story lmao
I've never been called a murder by a vegan. Although I am also: 1. Not a crow or in a group of crows 2. Someone who does not eat innocent animals or their excretions
What about guilty animals and their guilty excretions?
To be fair, I 100% Support veganism and think everyone should be vegan, but vegan forums on the Internet, Reddit included, show the absolute worst sides of the Community and they really Stick together with the lunatics. I'm often times not surprised how much hate vegans get. Of course the mature thing would be keeping the lunatics and the morals apart and chosing to do good even though some specimen of the movement are completely deranged, but most people just arent that mature. As an example, a while back there was a video about some guy defending a hedgehog from two Kids who tortured/kicked it. Instead of being happy the guy did that, the whole post and all comments were about how hyppcritical the guy probably is because he probably eats meat or animal products. They would have rather have him "Pick a Side". They dont understand that "torturing an animal for fun" and "eating meat because you are used to it and simply dont feel as guilty as you probably should" are not on the same level.
It's interresting that every people i ever heard claiming they have been called a murderapist by vegans turns out to be agressive meat supporters.
Most stable redditor
No, I didnt.
So... reducing something is still doing that thing? Wow, today I learned...
Unfortunately mentioning this in an information war usually does more harm than good. Try rallying millions of people against a complex issue or group of issues (climate change, global warming, pollution, etc), with not one but several different solutions that all need equal amounts of attention. People will not all zero in on the same solution, which makes disinformation/redirection campaigns by companies extremely impactful. The climate movement needs a clear and defined goal, with clear and defined means to accomplish this goal. Work towards rallying the movement rather than just stating the obvious.
Ya but, we're leftist's, infightings in our blood so thats not gonna happen.
Yes but it’s also been proven that if we transition everyone to a vegan diet then we would get 30 additional years to deal with the climate crisis
This is literally the same for all individual action, so i really hope you're pushing collective action hard if you can't be bothered to make any tiny changes for yourself.
unlike many here that just want to grift and complain about diets, I protest, donate (despite my limited funds) and volunteer constantly.
Why? What's the point if the ships are still there after your prostests? If your donations dont stop all the cars being made right now? Furthermore, if your donations are small, don't bother there's no point in any small changes we try to do like you say as long as these emitters are still out there. Also, you say people complain about diets is that not literally your "meme" just in the other direction?
These protests do work, many places have successfully banned these ships from docking, causing loss of profit's and shorter voyages due to that. Additionally political actions not just for that, but also larger systemic changes, as thats whats needed first and foremost. As for volunteer work, thats something i'd do even with different overarching circumstances, because cleaning polluted waterways is important and doesn't get enough govt support.
Ships are still there, tho so they haven't worked have they? And shorter voyages just means voyages more often surely? And you dont think rewilding and biodiversity increasing is important work too that you could do whether it helped the climate or not? My point is not you're doing rubbish but that everything you do is as useful as going vegan which you complain about. So if you dont want to go vegan for the reasons stated then you shouldn't bother doing anything or you can just admit you dont want to be vegan cos you're too selfish and lazy to care about animals or the impact agriculture has on more than just the climate.
Just want to reiterate. I think the work you are doing is great, but it's just a disingenuous argument you're making you're comment about water pollution is literally an argument for being vegan with no counter argument for it other than "but i like meat too much".
> Let's do nothing because someone else is worse than us, Is a talking point mostly used by big oil fans and now it's rediscovered by OP
The big oil talking point was that we should all be aware of our own personal carbon footprint, and ignore that even if we allllll ate less meat and biked to work more often (etc etc) it wouldn't fix the climate but it would distract us from going after the people who are wrecking it.
big oil focused on personal blame to ignore systemic issues (aka them), so, hows sucking off big oil working for ya?
Which is exactly why we need to take action by the people who are the real problem, causing all the damage, little stuff does nothing.
Noone is saying Go vegan and do nothing Else. You have to Go vegan and do other Things
Other things that are futile in the end if we don’t take action against the real problem
Meat consumption is part of the real problem. Animal agriculture causes 1/6 of all global emissions. Even if we stop ALL OTHER EMISSIONS but don't go vegan we won't stop climate change.
I've found a source for the sulphur claim. But nothing for anything else, where do you get the 18% figure from? Sulphur mentioned here https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/europes-luxury-cruise-ships-emit-as-much-toxic-sulphur-as-1bn-cars-study The data on greenhouse gas emissions shows ALL aviation and shipping at least that a quarter than agriculture, and this doesn't factor in land use which would increase the gap even more. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector Edit: missed a word.
This reminds me of the time someone asked me “how is raising the minimum wage gonna solve all our problems” after I advocated for raising the minimum wage once
Completely different, not at all a mappable example to this.
It’s similar in that neither of them is supposed to solve all our problems That’s about it
The difference between 15$ MINIMUM vs a 7.25 minimum is quite literally the difference between me being able to live without my parents or not, this is massively beneficial immediately to a huge sector of people + drastically and easily fixes ALOT of problems. Beyond the absolute nothing that me personally going vegan does, if EVERYONE went vegan it'd make less of an impact the cruise ships do, and that's a hypothetical that will literally never happen.
If everyone went vegan it would astronomically outweigh the impact of cruise ships. Like the comparison is so much of a joke in the first place that you should feel embarrassed
That’s not the most relevant component That doesn’t meet the dude’s requirement of “solves all problems” and the real thing to focus on is that nobody had actually said raising the minimum wage would solve all our problems. Going vegan won’t solve all our problems, and neither would completely mitigating the damage cruise ships do, but both of them would be positive changes.
It absolutely is when talking about the effect it has and how easy it is to implement lol. The positive change of a 15 minimum wage is significantly greater then the veganism for climate movement.
The the point isn’t that it will have any positive impact, or how hard it is. The point is that it won’t fix everything, and if that’s your standard then you can declare everything insufficient
This is stupid.
This is dumb for a number of reasons. Firstly this isn't really an argument for why going vegan is pointless its and argument for banning cruise ships. Secondly cruise ships might be owned by a small percent of people but they're used by a significantly larger amount of people since they're comercial vehicles not private pleasure cruisers so pinning it all on the people who own it is a little bit stupid, since the same thing applies to animal agriculture and most big industries in general. Thridly animal agriculture acountd for somewhere between 11-17% of global emissions the cruise ship industry almost certainly doesn't come anywhere close to that so yeah everyone going vegan would probably help more than nobody using cruise ships.
"Sure, X pollutes but Y pollutes more so I'm not gonna do anything" Please tell me you realize how fucking stupid that sounds
Can we stop dick measuring the “best” ways to address the climate crisis vs things that are “pointless” by comparison, and just agree we need to do as much as we possibly can of EVERYTHING to even have a chance here? There’s 0 chance we get everyone to be vegan. There’s 0 chance we stop everything driving. There’s 0 chance we ban all cruise ships. Calling for such things is simplistic. We need to ADAPT the underlying systems that support our ways of life to give ourselves a shot.
that or we just eat the ric-
You’ll get no arguments from me on that!
I can’t stand this subreddit, it seems like everyone here thinks that 1 magic bullet is going to solve climate change, why are we like this.
Mal mit der us Politik aktuell beschäftigt? Geht nie um Lösungen, immer nur um signaling und abgrenzen vom Gegner. Und das infiziert aktuell alle Bereiche des Lebens. Gibt nur noch schwarz und weiß :(
Yes, because blaming single problems is easier than addressing systemic problems that some here may benefit from.
My metaphorical magic bullet is becoming dictator. But it goes into a metaphorical shotgun.
Veganism in itself is a good move, the reduction of products stemming from cows specifically is also already really good in itself if we are speaking about environmental impact but it’s clear that none of this will fully weigh up to the impact certain mega corporations have on the environment. There is ultimately only so much you can do on your own before you have to move on to protesting more complex issues as a community and the focus on this sub is definitely on the former rather than the latter, when achieving a balance between the two topics should actually be the goal.
That and its impossible to make billions go vegan, culturally and socially its impossible and your likely to just get violent pushback. Contrary to what some may want to say, I'm not against people ***choosing*** to go vegan, and m someone that pushes for and wants a cleaner, smaller, and more humane (based on indigenous animal treatment) meat industry, and just an overall less toxic culture around consumption. What I'm against is grifters using environmental fears and false fear mongering to hijack channel of discussion to make the choice a magic bullet and diets a sole proprietor of all problems, that does nothing but distract from activism that could happen and make finding true information on current action harder. A vegan sitting doing nothing is more harmful to our planet than a meat eater that goes out, volunteers, donates and works for political action and systemic change and vise versa. Heck probably should have put the flair as "discussion" a thats more so why this post was made, to actually have discussion on this rather than the normal "calling people rapists, murderers, and fascists" from all sides that most vegan threads here become. (though that hasnt stopped some... creative people in my DMs)
> to actually have discussion on this rather than the normal "calling people rapists, murderers, and fascists" I see enough people with valid arguments but all you say is "acutally you cant feed every human with a plant diet because of culture bla bla bla" or you just dont interact with them at all. You want a discussion only to bring the same shitty argument over and over again? How am I suppose to counter that? "Yes stick to your destructive culture. Even if it means the end of all cultures in 100 years" "The planet is doomed forever but I had a culture." Thats a win in your eyes? > A vegan sitting doing nothing is more harmful to our planet than a meat eater that goes out, volunteers, donates and works for political action and systemic change and vise versa. You are describing yourself as the optimal living standard. Doesnt seem narcissistic at all :D you can be a vegan and do everything you listed. Btw 1kg of beef uses 13.000 liters of water. A 4 headed family could live 4 years off of that. Not even mentioning the forest that is burned down for fields. Your fields, to feed the fcking animal, instead of yourself directly. Narcissistic meat eaters are my favourites. Irreparably disconnect from reality and actual facts, calling themself the optimal human being. Fuck. You.
Voice of reason here.
Title so about cars, image is about diet. These are not the same. If everyone just stopped eating only beef today that could cut one-third of all methane emissions and two-thirds of all nitrous oxide emissions. It’s literally such a massive polluter. Just eat chicken or something.
No bro you don't understand bro it's the cruise ships' fault
Flawed logic. We must do multiple things to preserve habitability and biodiversity on this planet. Shitty shitpost
Imagine if there were still fools who believed that we had a choice about what we reduce. It's not as if CO2 neutrality means that we have to reduce everything. Becoming vegan is compulsory, it's not possible without it, everything else is hypocrisy, that others have to take on the burden for you.
Congrats on that excellent shitpost.
right its not like we have good stats on how this isnt a problem of individuals but of corporations, dont worry im sure daddy capitalisms so proud of your for defending it. Oh also veg and alternative food production still causes pollution and eco-system destruction and the best way forwards to actually yknow work on industry wide changes on how we produce food as a whole, something actually feesble, not based solely on "meat bad >:{", but yknow- inconvenient truth that grifters hate.
This is like saying the earths cooked whether we keep it under 2 degrees or 4 degrees warming, as if there's no difference. Which is frankly insane, even with the feedback mechanisms baked into climate change. There is a huge difference in whether some humans can adapt and survive, and making the planet completely inhospitable, as well as the timeframes it'd take to reengineer habitats, fight for sustainability. Going vegan is like transitioning from fossil fuels. Maybe even moreso than that transition, its one of the easiest, laziest ways to bring emissions down. That's why it should be a priority, while we work on the harder stuff (like emissions in construction).
Friendly reminder that it should be legal to hunt billionaires for sport :) Like tag! But more fun!
Pest control :)
>:) :)
Both are wrong, fire don't look like that in space.
Finally some good fucking content.
"According to their calculations the global livestock industry is responsible for **at least 51% of the greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere** and the amount of carbon dioxide is estimated at 32,564 million tons."
For real though, cruise ships are an actual threat an have largely gone un-talked about here like many issues, there are numerous resources to look at for different countries, if you are in Europe in a port city, its very likely that your city has a petition for banning cruise ships all together, sign these, and go protest. News story talking about some parts of Europe that have banned or are considering banning cruise ships as a quick resource: [Which European cities are trying to cut back the number of cruise ship visits? | Euronews](https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/05/13/cruise-ships-erosion-air-pollution-and-overtourism-are-driving-cities-towards-bans)
From the article >Lorna Slater, Scottish Green co-leader, also said that she hoped the cruise tax would encourage companies to use less polluting vessels, claiming one ship produces the same emissions as 12,000 cars. 60 ships according to title -> 720k cars I agree that we should completely get rid of cruise ships, but your math isn't mathing (at least on the CO2 side of this post). Sulfur emissions from ships have recent dropped quite a lot, due to new guidelines on shipping pollution. This is extremely good from a health perspective. However, sulfur had a cloud seeding / cooling effect, which is likely contributing to why we now have higher ocean temperatures after its decrease. [Source](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/) Framing this as "CO2 and SO2 from Ships equals cars", without clarification that cars produce very little sulfur emissions (11k tons in the united states, 2023 [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1234986/road-transportation-sulfur-dioxide-emissions-us/)) seems pretty disingenuous to me. Edit: grammar / formatting
This sub is for vegans to huff their own farts about how much smarter they are than you, not facts. /s
Why the /s when you spit facts?
Fun fact: the crisis is caused by much more than carbon and sulfur emissions. Animal agriculture is number one in water use, water pollution, habitat destruction and viruses. It also is responsible for the torture of trillions of sentient animals everyday. And heart disease! It is also the EASIEST thing to avoid for most individuals. Quit being a fucking pussy and take some responsibility.
Fertilizers are responsible for soil degradation and algal blooms from the runoff that suffocate marine life.
Yes and the vast majority of plants being grown are used to feed livestock so stop deflecting and make the better choice
My choice was to work in a career that actually matters and has a positive verifiable effect, to that end I do more on an annual basis then any choices you have made over an entire lifetime. Don’t get all high and mighty on me in terms of making better choices until you can show a lot more effort then a single person giving up meat based diet.
And vegetation agricultures responsible for the destruction of marine life thanks to fertilizer runoff, the loss of top soils, the destruction of entire species of animals due to farm expansion, ecosystem destruction, and also causes equally high emissions as most farms do not use electric machines. Thats without even talking about food packaging which is fucking atrocious no matter the diet. But yknow , vegan grifters don actually care about any of this, they'll change the grift once this one stops working. But i'm sure you care "so much"
The vast majority of "vegetation agriculture" is used to feed livestock animals. A plant based diet uses far less plants than an animal based diet. It's actually disgusting how you try to blame vegans for the shit animal ag is causing so you can justify torturing animals.
Earth if we abolish cruise ships but change nothing about our everyday lifestyles: still on fire. Nobody has ever claimed that veganism was the sole solution for everything. But veganism is a necessary part of every holistic solution.
>But veganism is a necessary part of every holistic solution. How?
There's actually quite a bit of debate that if you consider carbon capture potential (milk drinkers are very scared of this term so be careful), that animal agriculture is the most damaging industry in the world.
Is that an ad for a training course on ecology ? "Don't want to look like this stupid ass ? Buy our book right now and understand how not to fall for automotive propaganda !"
Honestly cruise ships are a crime and anybody who uses them is in my eyes an idiot
Yeah, but there are VEGAN CRUISES! So there! [https://www.vegan-cruises.com/](https://www.vegan-cruises.com/) I especially love that they advertise with being "sustainable".
not the carnival cruise ad in the comments💀
But how am I meant to be better than everyone else if I can’t force my diet on them as a, oops I mean like a religious zealot
This shows a lack of understanding of the climate cycle. The focus on emissions is a distraction. The real threat to our environment is the destruction of our carbon sinks. Ie, the forests and the oceans. If we had all the forests back, and the oceans were healthy again, they would easily absorb all the CO2 we are emitting today. But since we have destroyed a huge portion of our carbon sinks, emissions do cause the CO2 levels to rise. The number one cause of both deforestation and ocean ecology imbalance is animal agriculture.
You’d have to raze the forest for agriculture if the entire population switched to a vegan diet. So still in same boat and that doesn’t include the increased mining of phosphorus, and potassium nor the enormous increase in energy required for “fixing” nitrogen.
What? You haven’t thought this out and it shows. 80% of the plants humans grow in agriculture are consumed by the animals used for meat with a loss of around 95% of the energy. Dude, if you want to debate a position, at least spend a few minutes thinking about it before writing a post making yourself look completely ignorant and unable to question your own dogma.
What’s wrong with being ignorant of certain area of a topic? You use that as an insult when it shouldn’t be. Thanks for the information, do you have any sources for the 80% and 95% numbers? My dogma, that you look down on, is a realistic balance of resources with best practices to ensure the best quality of life for the current and future population. It requires a strategic plan based on verifiable data. I haven’t seen anything resembling that requirement from the vegan community.
Being ignorant is fine. Being ignorant of your own argument is not. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth https://cbey.yale.edu/our-stories/disrupting-meat#:~:text=Meat%20makes%20for%20curious%20math,just%201%20calorie%20of%20beef.
Ok, so where are they talking about the amount of land that would be used if the entire population changed to a vegan diet after accounting for the gains in farmland no longer growing food specifically for livestock? Our current usage of fertilizer is absolutely unsustainable and there needs to be significant reduction. How does a vegan only diet meet that need? I did notice a significant point in the article I found pretty interesting: “The large variability in environmental impact from different farms does present an opportunity for reducing the harm, Poore said, without needing the global population to become vegan. If the most harmful half of meat and dairy production was replaced by plant-based food, this still delivers about two-thirds of the benefits of getting rid of all meat and dairy production.” We can gain 2/3 of the benefits by reducing meat and dairy production by half. That sounds like a great strategy to start from and way more realistic than vegan only diet.
And really? You are telling me you have a strategic plan but didn’t realize that meat animals eats far more plants than humans would?
Nope. My speciality is the electric generation sector.
Yeah, big animals eat more food than small animals.
we can still solve climate change there is hope (just not in vegan or nuclear)
To be fair if you put a nuclear reactor in the cruise ships it would kill a huge amount of air pollution (gonna just ignore the risks associated with that many STDs being in close proximity to a nuclear reactor)
HEY THERE, YEAH YOU Let's FUCKING END THE BICKERING AND END CRUISES FOREVER. THAT BLOATED INDUSTRY DESERVES TO DIE. THEYVE NEVER PAID A CENT OF TAXES AND WE REALLY DONT NEED FLOATING HOTEL CASINOS WHO THE FUCK THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Coward
1 privat Jet that usually only transports one wealthy person causes more co2 than the average American in a year
tbf the entire concept of private jets disgusts me, they serve no actual purpose other than as vanity toys for capitalists, put them on the chopping block first.
mfw the rich spew shit bout "carbon footprints" yet are single handedly responsible for well over half of all carbon emissions
Jeff Bezos telling me to watch my carbon footprint as he takes a jet to go to his mega yacht.
Nuclear powered cruise ships when
Just for clarification about the vegan stuff, it's primarily been a singular user that has been posting about veganism on this sub. u/RadioFacepalm
I got body-swapped with u/soupor_saiyan though, normally I post about nuclear.
These numbers seem weird. If 60 cruiseships make up that high a percentage, how many cargoships could there possibly be in the world? Am I missing something here?
Bro never heard of water and land usage
Vegans who do it because of climate change are weak. Basically vegetarians imo.
Who knew capitalism was bad/s
If you want to do nothing, this is not the sub for you…
My assumption was that environmentalist’s ideology overlap in compassion and reduction of greed with vegans but a lot of environmentalists strive to disprove that notion
if it was about reduction of greed than vegans here would be calling for changes to all food production, rather than spreading missinformaton abut food production emissions and blaming only one part of an industry wide problem. Its just a grift. Additionally the discussion on compassion largely comes down to individuals, someone that eats meat isnt inherently more or less compassionate, someone whos vegan isnt inherently more or less compassionate.
I fucking hate the tactics that vegans use on this sub. They think that being smug or otherwise pretentious will make people switch their diet. Maybe if you were supportive people would come around to you...
I support you in meaningfully reducing your consumption of animal products in anyway you can. I took multiple years to actually go fully vegan from when I started reducing
And I appreciate that. The people I am referring to are in this thread shitting on me for not being 100% vegan because 1 gram of meat makes you as bad as an oil executive or something. People in this sub think that for multiple years your efforts were laugh worthy and pointless and that you should be were you are now back then. Can you see how that's off putting?
Dude you don't have to go vegan at once you can reduce and be vegetarian. There's a lot of posts of supportive vegan or vegetarian who gives recipe and tips. I can give you some if you want
Ofc, but this subreddit doesn't have them. I am working to gradually reduce, but this sub is often the complete opposite of that through many of the comments and posts
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnuku0/comment/la8vneh/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnuku0/comment/la8vneh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Literally someone on this sub who is saying that your advice is wrong. This is what I am talking about, the people who say that reducing meat is the same as being a conscious "anti-vegan"
You missunderstood if you reduce your consumption with the purpose of baning meat within the 2-3 years it's ok. If you juste reduce like you eat a chicken Burgen instead of a beef burger and that's all, then your not an environmentalist
They don't want solutions they want superiority.
You don't want solutions, you want bacon.
There are millions of supportive vegans, yet you aren't vegan. Stop lying to yourself.
Specifically talking about this sub but ok pop off
Oh so the Supportive vegans must BE in this room for you to Go vegan? Or won't you Go vegan because a vegan in this sub was mean to you? Maybe they climate crisis would already BE solved If the climate activists hadn't been that mean
The person you're replying to didn't even mention whether they're vegan or not. You don't even know, but you wanted to be self righteous about it.
He did implicitly state it in the first comment, because else he would have specified "some" or "most" vegans. In the last sentence he used "Maybe if you were supportive..." instead of "if we". And before writing my second comment he stated here [https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnuku0/comment/la8c8mu/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnuku0/comment/la8c8mu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) that he "is working to reduce" which first means he isn't vegan and secondly means he isn't planning on going vegan. And btw i know that you aren't vegan because you stated it here [https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnz5l6/comment/la8n380/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1dnz5l6/comment/la8n380/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) so don't try bullshit on me.
>He did implicitly state it in the first comment No he didn't. And if he's "working to reduce", that is literally working in the direction of veganism. You should be happy about that, but instead you're more interested in gatekeeping. >And btw i know that you aren't vegan because you stated it here Why are we talking about me all of a sudden? I never claimed to be vegan. Don't change the subject.
I just explained why he implicitly stated it. But maybe you are to stupid and all you can offer as a response is "no he didn't". If you would know what veganism is, you wouldn't stay such stupid shit. Veganism is the philosophy to end the exploitation of all animals whenever practial and possible. If you plan to reduce, you don't want to end exploitation, you plan on doing a little bit less exploitation. I just like to name things the way they are. If someone says "Maybe in the future i will reduce the number of my slaves" hi isn't an abolitionist and not isn't working on being an abolitionist. And I am not happy about people that "work on reduce". I wouldn't be happy if someone would work on reducing the amount of beating me up, Every time beating me up is one time to many.
>I just explained why he implicitly stated it You're just gaslighting, dude. >If you plan to reduce, you don't want to end exploitation, you plan on doing a little bit less exploitation. You're proving my point. This isn't about you trying to support veganism, this is about you wanting to gatekeep.
Basic english grammar = gaslighting It is ridicolus that we even talk about veganism here, as it is necessary. If you don't go vegan you are either stupid or selfish. And the fuck do you know about supporting veganism? You don't even know what it is, yet want to explain me how to make others vegans.
Unironically, yes. Social movements as a whole need to stop alienating people from their causes, especially vegans. Can you explain why being a dick is more likely for someone to see your POV? And no I'm against direct action/eco-terrorism or whatever, but I do think that a diversity of tactics is necessary for people to be on your side. Just maybe stop being a dick and trying to gate keep you ideology.
Do you think i was born a vegan? Spoiler: I wasn't as most vegans weren't. So basically every vegan once wasn't vegan and did have experiences that made them vegan. For me it was a talk of Mark Benecke about the climate and that being vegan is a necessity if we want to save our life on this planet. It took as long as the talk to go from someone who doesn't care what he eats to a vegan. And it was easy. It was so easy that i would call it fcking free. So why shouldn't i do what helped me to become vegan? And the time is up for baby steps.