cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11740609

Prof Mark Howden, the director of the Australian National University Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, said the sector’s net zero target is “effectively not possible”.

“It’s pretty well embedded in the public consciousness that red meat is high profile in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per serve,” Howden said.

“I suspect the industry saw this as a fundamental threat to their future … A few years ago everybody was kind of jumping on the net zero bandwagon without actually thinking through what it actually meant,” he said.

The CSIRO found the industry would fall short of meeting its net zero target, and instead recommended the adoption of a “climate-neutral” target that would require a reduction of methane emissions rather their complete elimination.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    49 months ago

    Maybe instead of blaming people for buying we should blame the companies for not doing better. After all it is the companies who are responsible for their own actions, regardless of who their customers are.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Both can and should be blamed. You can’t complain that what someone is doing is wrong and then keep supporting that wrong action when you don’t even have to.

      Eating meat is 100% an optional and more expensive action that is demonstrably worse for the planet, even aside from ethical concerns, but which the majority of people keep consciously choosing to do even when made aware of the issues and presented with alternatives. Those people are just as responsible as the people actively doing the farming.

      This wouldn’t even be considered a controversial statement if it wasn’t for the fact so many participate in it and want to keep making excuses. If a nation hired mercenaries to conduct military operations, you wouldn’t absolve that nation of guilt and say only the mercenaries are at fault, would you?