So fix both!
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2025
93 points (96.0% liked)
World News
50459 readers
1779 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not that this isn’t a valid concern but it seems like something that the oil companies would push as this isn’t a valid comparison.
It’s trying to get you to think about how livestock emissions compares to fossil fuel emissions while omitting 80 or 90% of fossil fuel emissions.
Aside from getting people to eat less beef ….. every year or two I see an article about food additives, such as certain algae’s, that help cattle produce less methane. But the story just disappears with no follow up. Whatever happens to those?
I assume part of it is cost but some of us already pay a little more for “pasture fed” “free range” “no growth hormone”. Where’s my “green” beef? I’d pay a bit more for that.
Or does it never actually pan out for practicality or taste or health or something
Why not just stop eating animals?
That’s a great “silver bullet” answer but not realistic. By all means it’s worth encouraging but you’re not getting there any time soon.
In the meantime, farming fewer ruminants helps as well as making progress in that direction. And for those ruminants we are still farming, food additives to modify their digestive products is a clear win. And if that makes animals more expensive to eat, maybe we start a virtuous cycle toward eating fewer animals
Livestock lives off green foods that produce oxygen and ties CO2 to grow, the oxygen then breaks down the Methane to CO2 which again is tied to the crops cows eat next year.
Oil burned has only the negative effect mostly CO2, while livestock is part of a cycle that would be sustainable if it wasn't for the fossil fuels.
Yes, but meat demands are also deforesting huge swathes of land all over the world. Then, instead of forest that are carbon-negative you get pastoral lands and cattle that are carbon-positive.
Brazil's deforestation is the world's most extreme. It is at a point now (due to deforestation and livestock) where the Amazon rainforest is no longer a carbon sink and now emits more greenhouse gasea than it absorbs.
Yes, but meat demands are also deforesting huge swathes of land all over the world.
You can use that argument for everything that isn't run in a sustainable manner. The same can go for growing vegetables that are not for animal feeding but human consumption. But it can be done in a sustainable manner, and obviously that was what I meant.
Brazil’s deforestation is the world’s most extreme.
Last I heard the land recovered from deforestation in Brazil is not very good, and generally cannot sustain their crops for long, the land becomes infertile, and they continue the deforestation.
This is unsustainable no matter what the crop is or is for. And is not a good argument against farming that is sustainable.
It especially sucks when it's rain forest that is lost, because it is extremely hard to get to recover again. I live in Denmark, and we produce 3 times more meat than we consume, and that is done with sustainable farming. Most of the farmland we have today used to be infertile heathland, and took decades to improve into fertile farmland.
Many countries have similar types of land that can be improved, so the problem is that they don't do that instead of destroying valuable land.
But to make it work requires government incentives to do that instead of ruining fertile lands and then just move on when the soil is depleted.
Nice cope you got there
This study was proudly presented by Standard Oil.
And the next study claiming the opposite will be sponsored by Cattle Farmer Inc.