Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.

https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption

Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-beef-industry-fueling-amazon-rainforest-destruction-deforestation/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-06-02/almost-a-billion-trees-felled-to-feed-appetite-for-brazilian-beef

If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌

Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

  • Miphera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    It really wouldn’t. If a corporation reduced their production of for example red meat, another one would simply scale up their production, because the demand of the market would remain unchanged.

    Also, there’s already more than just a “small percentage” of people who have dropped red meat from their diet. All vegetarians, vegans, pescetarians, and people who eat meat but stopped eating red meat due to the environmental impact add up to several percentage points, which is absolutely measureable and impactful.

    • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      If a corporation reduced their production of for example red meat, another one would simply scale up their production

      how can you prove this claim?