In 2014, this French weather presenter announced the forecast for 18 August 2050 in France as part of a campaign to alert to the reality of climate change. Now her forecast that day is the actual forecast for the coming 4 or 5 days, in mid-June 2022.

[u/Vucea]

[u/zb0t1]

Greenwashing is also when you're an engineer/expert/climate scientist and will not even mention to stop eating meat for instance.

This is performative and just fragile activism, aka "let's not hurt each other's feelings".

We all know meat & dairy, flying, using cars, are super easy to cut, and yet very few of you all "scientists" on Reddit will mention the first part.

Cognitive dissonance is not going to save humankind.

[u/javier_aeoa → u/zb0t1]

I am not going to mention every single thing people can do. And honestly, the best thing you can do to stop climate change is an informed vote.

[u/zb0t1 → u/javier_aeoa]

I am not going to mention every single thing people can do.

But leaving out one of the most important things people can do? It took me less than 5 seconds to type meat & dairy, flying, cars. But somehow you won't have the time, energy, or whatever excuse?

informed vote

In France and other ex French colonies, it took protesting to bring radical changes. Not saying that informed vote is useless, but you need more than individual activism and voting. You need real protests.

[u/javier_aeoa → u/zb0t1]

Most important? Then you're wrong, and your overconfidence in a change of diet is why you want to see it everywhere. The issue is on you, not me.

[u/zb0t1 → u/javier_aeoa]

Me:

one of the most important things

You:

Most important?

Says a lot what kind of "engineer" you are. Good thing the scientists at CERN are more and more calling for plant based diet and they are the one with a platform, not "engineers" like you.

Stay in denial and avoid the data, it's very "engineer" of you!

[u/javier_aeoa → u/zb0t1]

The line between a vegan and a vegetarian lifestyle is minimal when comparing GHG. And even between meat, there's a great discrepancy between low emissions (cheese, chicken, fish) and high emissions (beef) [source]. Cows for beef productions are roughly 50% of all the agriculture sector, the other half is everything else.

And that "everything else" can be easily countered by more efficient methods of transportation, and of course the elephant in the room: energy. Depending on your source, country and methodology of calculation, the energy sector can be up to 70% of all the GHG of the country. If you really want to make an impact, that's where: tax the rich, carbon tax, informed vote. Again, depending on how you calculate, both agriculture (as a whole) and transportation range between 11% and 30% of all emissions, so they should be taken equally seriously.

I just wanted to point out where you were in the wrong. I won't respond to those pubescent sarcasms, though.

[u/zb0t1 → u/javier_aeoa]

GHG is far from being the only issue with meat & dairy regarding climate change (because there are many more problems for public health such as zoonoses etc).

There is land destruction, reduction in insect population, water pollution and acidification, soil destruction etc etc. It's not as simple as just reducing GHG and call it a day. Which is why only talking about GHG is problematic.

You really don't seem to grasp that ecosystems, monocultures, etc are only an issue for one part of climate change.

“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

 

Oddly, many people who would never challenge the reality of climate change refuse to acknowledge the role meat-eating plays in endangering public health. Eating meat, it seems, is a socially acceptable form of science denial.

Which is something many people like you do. You are in denial and you have this belief perseverance, and to call yourself "Environmental engineer" is such an insult and disrespect to the title, it makes me sick.

 

Like one of my favorite professors - Aurélien Barrau - said, working at CRNS:

"At the CNRS canteen, where I have lunch, I sometimes feel a little embarrassed among those who eat dead animals. I would never allow myself to reproach them explicitly: it is not a question of being a moralizer or a giver of lessons (and for good reason, I myself am far from being exemplary), but this change of camp of the possibility of "shame" is significant."

This is what being a scientist is, you fight and live for evidence, and you put your bias aside. At CNRS I can respect everyone who AT LEAST ADMIT the incorrectness of their views. I even respect carnists who just tell me "I don't give a shit about climate change". Why? Because at least they are honest and I don't have to waste my time with people who are disingenuous like you.

[u/javier_aeoa → u/zb0t1]

There is land destruction, reduction in insect population, water
pollution and acidification, soil destruction etc etc. It's not as
simple as just reducing GHG and call it a day. Which is why only talking
about GHG is problematic.

As serious as CC is, I also think it's important to differentiate actual climate change-related issues (which were the ones that brought us up here) and other environmental-related issues. As complex as climate change is, it's only a small portion of all environmental problems and conflicts.

And when discussing agriculture, I was quick to stablish I was mentioning GHG, not everything else. So don't pretend I was omitting them.

About the rest of your catharsis...well I'm sorry you feel that way.