Yeah, you're basically saying that advocating something like Meatless Mondays is more likely to cause worthwhile change than starting an article with I read somewhere that limiting your red meat consumption to twice a week was... magically good for the environment or something and also not bad for you, so I do that. I also pat myself on the back when I eat vegetarian once or twice a week (not one meal, one day). It's a hell of a lot more approachable for me than forswearing animal protein because critters be delicious. I make no bones about the fact that my carbon footprint is much greater than your average Han Chinese but my everything footprint is much greater than your average Han Chinese so rather than becoming Han Chinese all at once, I attempt to do better. Doing better is so much more approachable than doing perfect. So yeah. Suggesting that the apocalypse is directly due to my love of burgers does not put me on a footing for dialogue, if that's what the article is trying to do. Especially when it follows up with some vague statistics and hand-wavey proclamations involving Einstein. Electric cars do pencil out, cradle to grave, for the environment. However, things get a little muddier if you compare a brand new hybrid with a used car that already exists.I feel like this came out a shambles, but hopefully someone got something interesting from it.
Between widespread economic disparities, population growth, unsustainable agriculture and climate change, a study partially funded by Nasa predicted that civilization as we know it could be steadily heading for a collapse within the next century – and the window to create impactful change is narrowing.
Thanks for the info re: electric cars. I shared it with my brother, who is very critical of their production (especially the environmental cost of the batteries) I think rather than "Meatless Mondays" I'd advocate something much like what you do - maybe 40/60 meat and vegetarian, with a focus on using all of the animal, not just the prime and choice cuts. Eat some Beef Heart or something, y'know?
"Focus on all of the animal" is really a different problem altogether. Machine-scale agriculture works on the premise of packing plants that take chicken specifically bread for giant breasts and tiny wings and thighs that then separate out everything and send it to other places to be used for different purposes. Economies of scale would dictate that having a giant Tyson factory distribute Foghorn Leghorn is going to be more efficient than you doing it; after all, you may or may not have a use for a chicken beak but there may well be someone out there who can use a truckload of chicken beaks. I wholeheartedly recommend the book The End of Food by Paul Roberts; it's a thought-provoking and in-depth exploration of the externalities of modern agriculture. Bill McKibben's Eaarth touches on similar problems; McKibben describes his attempts to get his local restaurants to use locally sourced bacon, which doesn't exist, because without the massive economies of scale brought by megafarms, bacon can't be produced for less than $9/lb.
Even just reducing the amount of meat used in meals is a decent step. Made a tomato basil tart that had about four ounces of diced ham in it. Fed two adults and a child with enough for someones lunch tomorrow, It had around four ounces of cheese on it as well. Salad with vegetables from the garden on the side. Lot less meat than a couple of steaks and I'm in no way saying that there is anything wrong with a few vegetarian meals a week. Make soup about once a week, only meat in it is the stock and sometimes a few ounces of fatback or bacon, with a loaf of bread it's a nice meal.
I'm a huge foodie and get an unapologetic joy from eating dead animals. That said, I've made a point to start integrating vegetarian dishes into my own cooking, as well as using more bones, neck meat, and other such 'off cuts' that would usually otherwise be waste. It's good for my budget and my cholesterol.