This is the best summary I could come up with:
The “gigantic” power of the meat and dairy industries in the EU and US is blocking the development of the greener alternatives needed to tackle the climate crisis, a study has found.
Cutting meat and dairy consumption also slashes pollution, land and water use, and the destruction of forests, with scientists saying it is the single biggest way for people to reduce their impact on the planet.
“The power of the animal farming sector, both in the US and in Europe, and the political influence they have is just gigantic,” said Prof Eric Lambin, who conducted the study with Dr Simona Vallone, both at Stanford University, US.
The researchers concluded that “powerful vested interests exerted their political influence to maintain the system unchanged and to obstruct competition created by technological innovations”.
Lambin said: “We found that the amazing obstacles to the upscaling of the alternative technologies relates to public policies that still massively fund the incumbent system, when we know it’s really part of the problem in terms of climate change, biodiversity loss and some health issues.”
Alex Holst, at the Good Food Institute Europe, said: “While European investment in sustainable proteins has increased in recent years, this study shows the sector is still only picking the crumbs off the EU’s table.
The original article contains 761 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Shouldn’t the first is be are. I suck at grammar, but shit if journalism isn’t dead.
No, because the subject is “the power”, which is singular.
Huh…
Thanks for pointing that out. I had to read it again a few times to get it. It still feels like it doesn’t flow as much with is.
I wonder is that a me problem and that it sounds correct to most people, or just a curiosity of the language.
Also, is the subject of the sentence always definite or can it sometimes be ambiguous?
good bot
Why am I not surprised? Every big industry is trying to undermine any change that would cost them money or power. It’s fucking criminal yet no government will do anything because money and jobs
At this point you gotta put quotes around jobs because there’s only money flowing via lobbying / legal bribery. The Fed wants higher unemployment and employers are happy to oblige.
Or maybe the jobs are the revolving door consultation jobs we made along the way :)
Why should a government do something against the will of the people if they have nothing to gain from it?
We can opt out and stop supporting the Animal industry. If ~10% of all stop supporting it politics will change.
There’s something we humans seem to not understand: not everything has to be a gain. There are things that need to change, whether we like it or not. I eat meat, I could never be a vegetarian. Yet if the government did something about the meat industry and meat gets really expensive I would complain for a bit and then keep on living, eating other things.
Every change people act like it’s the end of the world. And corporations know that, and push against change and regulations. What we need is strong politics but that’s a utopia nowadays
It is obvious that I disagree, not only because you yourself disagree with you:
I could never be a vegetarian … then keep on living, eating other things.
Where I presume other things would simply be plants. So you could but a strong government has to force you.
The last government in the Netherlands wanted to force the animal industry to reduce the nitrate strain on the earth and groundwater. A new conservative “farmers” party was formed which was elected then. They have a massive industrial animal complex which powered this party that ran on fear and bullshit.
There are things that need change, but the most important part is to change what we have power over, our self. Every government in the world has to face the problem of animal industry, just like coal and fossile fuels. China already has plant based protein in their latest five-year agricultural plan, but they don’t have to fear the voters as much. So if you live in a democracy and you value it you have to live the change you want to see. It takes money from the industry, it supports alternatives and it shows the government that they will not be replaced by industry powered fearmongers if they propose changing the system.
- Eating meat and dairy supports the industry
- A plant based diet is the passive way of not supporting it
- Fighting against the industry is the active way
You position is not neutral, at the moment you support what is “uncovered” in the article, you might consider changing that 💚
I don’t believe change comes from just freedom. Sometimes it does, but we are like kids. If we don’t have limits we do what we want. Nobody wants to change their habits. My point was that I can adapt. I can eat much less meat, discover new recipes and so on. But I’m comfortable now and I don’t want to change. The same goes for the majority of people, and we will never solve climate change if we are not forced to change habits. We, individually, will never have the same impact as governments passing regulations. We disagree, and that’s exactly why we can’t change by doing things alone
So your are working more in the direction of authoritarian governance? Authoritarian left I guess because the right still even hold strong on fossile fuels.
What do you propose to do with those how don’t comply with your rule of force, gulag?
Can you think of any change in history where that worked out? Most rights we have fought for in history: voting rights, women voting, abolishing of slavery, human rights, all that came from the people and there have been wars for it. Animal rights and the rights of future generations are tied into each other. We can’t have one without the other We should not need governance or bibles to take responsibility for our own actions.
Animal agriculture will raise the temperature even if we had stopped 2 years ago with all fossile fuel by 2°C. Since we still burn fossile fuel the temperature will raise above +4°C, a point where all animal agriculture will fail because the animals will die from heatstroke and starve from global crop failure.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
And your position is “if you force me I will comply
daddy presidentbeloved leader” instead of joining the millions who have gone already vegan? Are you really like a kid?Jezz you went completely to the extreme without addressing any of my points. I’m not saying we should have an authoritarian government. Just one with regulations. Are you an anarchist? Because you sound like one. All the big things are done organized, be it in a government or an association. Do you think women’s rights were done by a group of people? Governments passed laws. So you need laws to help society. Whether you like it or not
Absolutely, stuff happens, no protests, no civil war, people just don’t care and then it happens. How could I not have seen that.
Do you have no respect towards those who fought for your rights? All the marches and protests that brought us to where we are now? It would be great if you join a association or organization, you don’t have to do it alone!
Yes, I am leaning towards veganarchism, I would prefer not to have a government having to force people what they eat. Maybe its a kink of yours, don’t know. I am 40, I am vegan for 5 years. I don’t think I would have excused my earlier actions with a too weak government. That’s real sad is all I am saying
I’m not a vegan, but beef production needs to be severely cut back if we want a sustainable meat industry.
Even compared to pork, beef is one of the most resource-intensive foodstuffs available. Cows need more land, better food, they release more greenhouse gases. I saw an infographic ages ago that claimed Beef was eight times as wasteful per pound as Pork! And of course chicken was even more efficient.
While plant-based substitutes are fine for some, in the meantime we need a cultural transition away from beef and towards pork for traditional American meals.
deleted by creator
Why are there always anti-nuclear and articles about industries that account for “>15%” of of greenhouse emissions in the “green” community? The world burned more coal last year then it has in any previous year, yet I never see articles about the coal industry? I exclusively see articles about how if just 90% of the most powerless people in the world made their life measurably worse, thing it “would help.” Why the fuck aren’t we talking about the other systemic 85% of greenhouse gasses? Why do we need to destroy human culinary culture in order to preserve corporate profits?
You never see articles about the coal industry? I’m just gonna call bullshit on this one
Link one? I see one thread that references the “fossil fuel industry,” which coal is certainly a part of. But honestly a comparison of the number of articles about coal vs agricultural green house gases on lemmy doesn’t really matter. But I do get the sense that cost and individual action are are given too much weight in the lemmy green community.
Why “vs”?
Literally no one is saying “stop eating beef and keep coal plants open”
Germany is.
