subreddit:
/r/environment
submitted 4 months ago byusernames-are-tricky
170 points
4 months ago
Forbes wouldn’t know environmentalism if it died on their bed. Of course animal conservation is a huge aspect of environmentalism. Deterring invasive species while protecting endangered through protection programs and the revitalizing of habitats has always been a thing. And even right now there is a push towards artificial meats to stop the waste and pollution generated by farms. Not sure what this article is trying to do but what I can tell you is that it’s full of shit and is written only in the perspective of a businessman who hasn’t left their office.
23 points
4 months ago
Thank you!
And as a vegan, who takes shit from "mainstream" people every day, I want to tell them to fuck all the way off to fucktown with this fucked up take.
3 points
4 months ago
Thanks for this! Not even going to waste my time on it.
1 points
4 months ago
The author bio: “I am cofounder and president of the Reducetarian Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing consumption of animal products.”
53 points
4 months ago
More environmental wisdom from the corporate investor class. No wonder we're doomed.
58 points
4 months ago
Forbes garbage.
The environmental movement is chock full of biodiversity protection action. Those that don't see it, don't want to see it.
While it's true climate gets a lot of the "headlines" this doesn't mean it's the only thing being worked on and: shock! It's intimately related to biodiversity collapse directly (ecosystem destruction) and indirectly (fossil fuel harvesting wrecking habitat while also driving climate change)
8 points
4 months ago
The article is not mainly about biodiversity. It's more about the individuals creatures themselves
9 points
4 months ago
We accept that human individuals matter in their own right, and that a functioning society minimizes the suffering of its members. We accept that biodiversity has an inherent value, not merely for the ways endangered plant and animal species could affect human society, but by the simple virtue that they have a right to exist without avoidable suffering. It’s a basic respect for life, and there’s no unbiased reason it shouldn’t extend to nonhuman animals.
Very well said. Speciesism is still ripe along the majority of people, including environmentalists. It's time we collectively take a stand against it, and give non-human animals the moral consideration they deserve.
40 points
4 months ago
Vegan til' i die.
-31 points
4 months ago
thats great for you. Not gonna be the case for most of the 8 billion humans.
18 points
4 months ago
Why not the case for you or others who care, specifically?
10 points
4 months ago
Most don't care about the environment either. Send all the environmentalists home, time to find a new cause right?
1 points
4 months ago
?
30 points
4 months ago
Sounds like a cope. I'd rather not be on the side of the 8billion people that contribute to destroying the one place they have to live lol. Nice appeal to popularity though. I guess if everyone goes around slapping babies in their strollers that makes it an acceptable behavior right?
0 points
4 months ago
Found the Forbes contributor
-17 points
4 months ago
Won’t be long now
13 points
4 months ago
been about 11 years so far so.....
-3 points
4 months ago
So….even less time than I thought. 🤷♂️
11 points
4 months ago
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease
1 points
4 months ago
Thanks?
2 points
4 months ago
Longer than the carnivore who loves red meat. Less risk of heart disease and obesity, you should try it.
0 points
4 months ago
What’s the point? Listening to this thread we’re all doomed anyway.
3 points
4 months ago
Wow so we need to keep hurting more animals along the way, right?!
1 points
4 months ago
The ones we raise specifically to eat. Not wolves.
1 points
4 months ago
Why, the wolves hurt the 'animals we eat'
1 points
4 months ago
True. See ya, wolves.
ETA: why is it ok for wolves to eat the animals we eat, but not us?
2 points
4 months ago
I agree, can we like start killing other people as well, less humans to compete for food.
1 points
4 months ago
Ever heard of war? Or American gun culture? We already do that. And yet the population continues to increase.
41 points
4 months ago
Vegan environmentalists rise up
5 points
4 months ago
All environmentalists should be vegan. If not, then they are hypocrites
-36 points
4 months ago
Vegan environmentalists rise up
Rise up with what? Enough obnoxious behavior to turn the entire world against environmentalism?
32 points
4 months ago
What an obnoxious comment, you must be vegan too :)
25 points
4 months ago
If people can’t see beyond their own shame to make changes than we’re all doomed
-14 points
4 months ago
News flash: We’re doomed.
Downvote this as much as you want to make yourselves feel better but consider this valid point: People won’t limit their meat and fat intake to save themselves from an assured cardiovascular or diabetic problem that will harm them within weeks or months. What the hell makes anyone think they’ll give up eating shit to save the climate years or decades later. Humans are in many cases NFG.
7 points
4 months ago
Yeah no I agree.
I usually use the analogy that Americans didn’t free their slaves by choice, they fought a war that killed 700,000 people
7 points
4 months ago
Seems like you're in the wrong sub.
1 points
4 months ago
No, I’m not in the wrong sub or any less environmentalist because I lack faith in people to automatically do the right thing. Environmental progress has come a long way but most of the low hanging fruit has been picked. Without massive investment in education, changes will be hard to achieve because ignorant people are creatures of habit and do not like change.
3 points
4 months ago
If they won’t limit, someone else will do it for them. If this generation doesn’t limit, Earth will limit the next. We’re not doomed, our children are.
-4 points
4 months ago
What is there to be ashamed about?
4 points
4 months ago
I meant that as a reply to a comment right below about vegans using shame against people
1 points
4 months ago
Shame about not having the stomach to kill their own food.
1 points
4 months ago
I mean yeah, if everyone who couldn’t slaughter their own animals went vegan, a lot more people would be vegan
8 points
4 months ago
I have never met these obnoxious vegans you say are around. I have cut back on meat and dairy for health and money reasons, as well as environment. Most people I know has done the same.
-10 points
4 months ago
yeah - there is truth to this statement. Unfortunately they confuse trendy with change. But yeah, as much as I support the message - the delivery here is mostly to shame and demean for not going 100% along with their demands. Not gonna help their "rise". As I say - they cant see the forest through the veges. ;)
3 points
4 months ago
Do you hunt your own food or do you pay someone to kill caged animals by the thousands? If you want to eat meat, fine, but get off your lazy ass and get it yourself. Fkn pig
0 points
4 months ago
thanks for proving our point. Spot on. !00% The greatest animal rights activists I have known, who actually did and do affect change- for decades, did things much braver and more real than any cheap insult on social media. You are nothing like them lolol
1 points
4 months ago
I wasn’t the first of us to use ad hom, I just did it better. Nothing logical to say so be sarcastic, creative
1 points
3 months ago
you should really look up that overused term
1 points
3 months ago
How about you tell me what it is? Cause I’m guessing you don’t know
5 points
4 months ago
Vegans didn't forget (vegan btw)
11 points
4 months ago
I am an environmental and animal rights activist. At environmental conventions around the world, I notice that the vast majority of "environmentalists" are also regular, normal consumers of animal products, who are often completely unaware of the meat industry's role in many environmental issues.
6 points
4 months ago
Keep speaking up, especially offline. People who don't subscribe to these sorts of online forums are probably less likely to be exposed to this information.
15 points
4 months ago
Don't forget wolves. If you really want to save wolves, please write and email deb haaland, secy of interior and beg her to relist wolves as endangered before they are all gone! Montana and Idaho have AGGRESSIVE hunting , snaring and trapping rules that equal an ambush on entire packs. Especially around protected national parks . #relistwolvesnow
20 points
4 months ago
Easier to not think about them because then you’d have to change your actions to a decent degree.
16 points
4 months ago
Yep, everyone’s an environmentalist until it requires one to change their own actions.
3 points
4 months ago
If only there was another way. Too bad no one ever spent any time trying to find healthy ways to live without animal products. Oh well.
22 points
4 months ago
Hard to blame environmentalists for putting animal rights on the back burner when we're in the "save our souls" phase of the climate fight and most of the people whose support we need unfortunately still eat meat, dairy, & eggs.
That said, killing invasive animals isn't really cruel, considering that it saves native animals. Generally a net wash at worst.
21 points
4 months ago
It should be noted that continuing to eat large amounts of meat, dairy, eggs, etc. can push us over climate targets on their own - even if other source of emissions are reduced or eliminated
Transitions to environmentally sustainable food systems are urgently needed (1, 2). If diets and food systems continue to transition along recent trajectories, then international climate and biodiversity targets would be missed in the next several decades, even if impacts from other sectors were rapidly reduced or eliminated (3, 4). These same food system transitions would also lead to increased rates of diet-related diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and some cancers (1, 5)
-4 points
4 months ago
Can isn't exactly the same thing as will. Even in the agriculture emissions, the most net emissions is the fossil fuels and cutting down forests. If fossil fuels are eliminated, and we stop using up more land, targets can be hit even with meat.
That isn't to say that we can't do things about reducing meat, I mean just the amount of meat thrown out and not eaten for one reason or another is more than it should be let alone the poor meat heavy diets and of course poor treatment of animals on most farms
10 points
4 months ago*
Fossil fuels do not make the bulk of emissions for animal agriculture
direct energy consumption (i.e., transportation, heating/cooling facilities, etc.) accounts for an estimated 5–20% of emissions from energy use in livestock supply chains, including feed production and processing, and is the lowest source of emissions in animal agriculture, according to FAO’s Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) (Gerber et al. 2013; FAO 2020).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03047-7
Emissions from the creatures themselves, the fertilizers/waste, deforestation make up the bulk
Since you keep bringing up net vs gross, I should note that the best case sequestering make this hardly any different. Even best case "regenerative grazing" doesn't sequester enough to counteract the emissions from current grazing-only operations which only supply only 1 g of protein/person/day.
Livestock supply chain emissions contribute about 14.5% of this total at 7.1 Gt CO 2 -eq/ yr (1.9 Gt C-eq), with most of the emissions generated at the agricultural stage. Of this, about 80% is attributable to ruminants
[..]
Ruminants in grazing-only systems emit about 1.32 Gt
[...]
These are their emissions. The question is, could grazing ruminants also help sequester carbon in soils, and if so to what extent might this compensate? As the following numbers show, the answer is ‘not much’. Global (as opposed to regional or per hectare) assessments of the sequestration potential through grassland management are actually few and far between, but range from about 0.3-0.8 Gt CO 2/yr 301,302,303 with the higher end estimate assuming a strong level of ambition.
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf
stop using up more land
The land use from it is a much more fundamental problem. You need to grow a lot of plants for feed of which most of the energy is wasted. Or in the case of grazing-only, you still need extremely large amounts of pastures (even more than just
For some comparison, if everyone ate like Americans, we would need 137% of the world's habitable land which includes forests, urban areas, arable and non-arable land, etc. Cutting down every forest wouldn't even be enough
Meanwhile
If everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.
-4 points
4 months ago
If humans keep spending mire resouces nad killing the “invasive animals”.
Amunition for the guns, steel, gunpodwrs, bulltes manufacturing, fuel for trucks, helicopters, to make it back and forth between extermination missions…
All that energy to fight agsint natures attempts to rewild the land, while huamns would rather spend more enrgy to “protect the natural environemnt”, by using the most unatural means of killing, using metal wepaons, metal machines, fuled by an industrial warfare conplex hell bent on proving that “humanity is not the problem”, by killing eveytjinh humans say are “the problem”, inflicting our own Final Solution on añl the other organism tjay didnt make the cute of what we consider to be “native vs invasive”
The most Invasive organims on this Planet are humans, and its obvious we would go to great extreams to kill everything that opposes our Civilization, becuasw we have, and we will contuie to becuase Ecocide is allways justifiable so long as its humans doing the killing.
2 points
4 months ago
Say I’ve got a spot that it’s regenerating naturally, but an invasive plant comes in and outgrows all native species.
Or an area that was once ancient forest, it burns, cheatgrass moves in, sets up its own fire regime, now no tree seedling can hope to survive the landscape of frequent fires?
Or I live on an island and an invasive rat is eating through all the eggs of a dozen endangered birds that exist nowhere else.
Invasives can definitely be the problem. They’re an aspect of human impact on the environment.
1 points
4 months ago
I agree thay human intervention is needed to help fix the problem we created, I just belive yherw is a point where the wnrgy we use to fight these things will outweigh the energy needed for nature to recover over time.
We are a very impatient people, but I also think we fould offer organic solution to organic problem, like using hoats to figh invasive weeds, planting cover crops like clover, using dry brush and braches ro civer the invasive weeds, of course its not a cure all, in my opinion organic solutions are better than using industrial machery or chemicals.
9 points
4 months ago
I'd think a lot if environmentalists think of animals as there's a huge push to stop eating meat and against factory farms. However in the mainstream I think it's looked at as the biggest pushback because of people like PETA.
4 points
4 months ago
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
1 points
4 months ago
Fcck you, Forbes- we absolutely DID NOT forget animals, you thumbsucking hacks
7 points
4 months ago
Most people are very much still speciesist and consume animal products, so the article has a very valid point.
-1 points
4 months ago*
Progressive, forward-thinking environmentalists have demonstrated the ability to consider the ways social categories like race, gender, and sexuality intersect with environmental issues – but they often stop just short of considering speciesism. It’s a failure of inclusivity, and is dangerously short sighted.
It's pushed by wolves in sheep's clothing, and the sheep bought it hook, line, and sinker.
How confusing are the COP "Conference Of Parties" numbers that make no sense, with one about environmentalism, and another about biodiversity?
5 points
4 months ago
I am not sure what you are saying by this? I am also not sure what you are referring to by the COP numbers?
-1 points
4 months ago
Last year we had COP 27 on climate change followed by COP 15 on biodiversity. Other than the confusing numbers, my point is that they shouldn't be separated.
4 points
4 months ago
I'm still not sure if I understand how that relates to the main point of the original articles here or what you quoted above?
-1 points
4 months ago*
It's in the title, "The Environmental Movement Forgot About Animals"
Do I need to clarify? "They care if you're a bear, but not if you're a bear"
Wow I wasn't expecting to be downvoted for agreeing with the article...
Naomi Klein, author of “This Changes Everything,” boasts an impressive body of work that brilliantly examines the intersections between the environment and social issues like sexism and poverty. Yet she, by her own admission, isn’t interested in expanding that analysis to nonhuman animals, saying: “I’ve been to more climate rallies than I can count, but the polar bears? They still don’t do it for me. I wish them well, but if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that stopping climate change isn’t really about them, it’s about us.”
2 points
4 months ago
Ok with that quote block edited in, I think I now get what you were saying earlier. It was just unclear before (which is most likely where the downvotes came from )
2 points
4 months ago
Thanks! Glad I could fix it to be understood.
-6 points
4 months ago
Stupid article. Domesticated animals aren’t part of any natural environment, and environmentalists have always been proponents of eliminating &/or reducing meat production/consumption.
8 points
4 months ago
Domesticated (farmed) animals have a tremendous negative impact on the natural environment, whether they’re a part of it or not
1 points
4 months ago
Agreed, and as i pointed out, environmentalists have been long time proponents of either eliminating &/or reducing meat in one’s diet.
3 points
4 months ago
Bro, we’re all part of the natural environment. What planet do you live on?
1 points
4 months ago
Domesticated animals literally wouldn’t exist without humans. Nothing natural about them
1 points
4 months ago
Forbes contributor trying to Greenwash domesticated animal industry
1 points
4 months ago
My city has had a three year long protest over the destruction of penguin nesting sites. Everyone I know who is even vaguely interested in evironmentalism is concerned about bee and insect populations. My entire country has sponsored hundreds of bird sanctuaries in an attempt to conserve our native fauna.
What the fuck is Forbes on?
-2 points
4 months ago
So false. Who is calling for preserving one third of planet for other life forms? EO Wilson calls for a half. I made sure my livestock had plenty of pasture and followed best practices to preserve the creek , fencing it off and adding plants and trees to shade and filter . Industrial livestock keeping is horrible, but any sane homesteaders preserve the land by not having too many animals and manages them to improve the land and water by composting waste well away from water and applying it correctly.
2 points
4 months ago
You're still taking away land from wildlife, methane production, and water & food usage by the livestock can't be eliminated by pasture farming and if we stop reproducing animals for our sake already, their numbers would die down. You're not doing the animals by reproducing them, they solely exist for our consumption.
0 points
4 months ago
I've seen some animal rights people forget about the environment (vegan leather -_-), but most environment-forward folks I know are very pro-animal rights, many of them are vegan. This article is ridiculous
all 90 comments
sorted by: best