Should someone feel less of a man just because someone notes that his wife's smaller car gets her to the same places he does, in the same time he does, for less CO2?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I agree that every single one of us is probably going to have to cut down on things we enjoy. Thing is, the study finds that for now, men's bigger cars and bigger meat consumption outweighs the carbon footprint of more women-like tastes, including fashion. It's a calculation, not an opinion.
Now, does it mean we should do nothing against the carbon footprint of fast fashion? Of course not. The study doesn't say so. Should we aim for the low-hanging fruit of excess red meat and bulky cars that get you nowhere better than leaner ones? That is reasonable.
That also impacts women who happen to eat a lot of meat and like to drive large cars, btw. And also men who like fast fashion. But knowing why there is a general tendency of men to have a larger carbon footprint makes it possible to better explain policies encouraging cutting that.
And also encourage better alternatives, outlets, for men to express their masculinity in a way that is less taxing for the environment. There are lots of options, and a reasonable debate to have. But we can't have it if we decide that we don't like the data.
You hit the nail on the head. The study could have been published with a comment on fast cars being more polluting and meat consumption also. But they had to go and link it with the habits of a particular demographic.
The similar study on fashion would read: WOMEN’S HABIT POLLUTES MORE THAN MEN
We don't need another study on fast cars being more polluting and meat consumption also. Those are already well-established facts. What we need is an understanding on how to go about it. That's why we need to understand how different demographics work.
This looks like a solid point but the chance of the entirety of the human race going meatless overnight is exactly 0.
If we ever were going to go towards meatless (which is NOT the idea of the study) we would just produce less and less new calves as we need less beef. No "destruction of trillions".
This reminds me of a friend who was saying owning a dog is immoral. When I said they’re completely dependent on us, what’s your solution he jokingly said maybe we should let them all die. He was trying to be edgy ofc but it shows emotional moralism has no solution to offer.
Perhaps we should point out the fashion industry's environmental footprint. We should also provide reasonable alternatives. People are unlikely to quit eating meat, but it's a good idea (not just for environmental reasons) to eat less and more consciously. As it's a good idea to learn to sew.
Precisely. Nothing in the study says 'men should quit meat', reading that into it is a bit of an overreaction. Eating less meat (but more than a woman, as the study also takes into account the different biological needs of men and women) seems like a possible way to go.
But if you want to do that you need to understand why you do it (data), who you are addressing your communication (based on data), and to take into account the political aspect of it (also data).
Here’s how I would have framed it: big cars have high emissions—end of story. I really don’t get why it should be men vs women. The same car will emit the same amount per mile no matter the gender of the driver. I don’t think focusing on the consumer’s gender is productive or useful.
Yeah, I have no problem eating lab grown meat. But I’m unwilling to change my dietary habits. It works for me, helps me with my hobby and at least on this part of the world it’s rather cheap and easy source of protein.
I'd argue that health reasons are more important in reducing meat consumption than environmental ones. For environmental reasons an occasional free range steak instead of a industrial farm grown meat 3-4 times a week is fine. But, again, I'd rank the ethical argument higher in this case, too.
That is of course entirely reasonable (not that you need my approval) and the debate between how ethics/health/climate arguments is very welcome. But again, that is where the data is useful:
That's not going to change for everyone. I still have my coffee with real milk. My impression is my students get more fake milk. Our generation is likely not the target for any campaign to change dietary norms. Our habits are too entrenched.
if the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, this is not a good way to go about it since it has exactly zero practical policy implications. What they try to argue is that men are going to vote different that women because of their carbon footprint. Sorry, this is exactly what we don't need this moment
their conclusions read like a dystopia if followed to their logical policy consequences, pretty much the rallying cry of the far right when it comes to regulations about carbon emissions.
and to wrap it up: imo, what we need is consensus policies, broad, comprehensive carbon emissions regulation, concentrated at the major sources, across the globe. What we don't is to go again with making this an us vs them issue, see gilet jaune
Make the cars more efficient and lab-grown meat and other technological innovations. This way it’s not gonna be “hey Johnny Bagofdonuts don’t take the car you like” to “hey Ford, build better.” As an example.
People have preferences. Women, in a distributional sense, have their own and men, again as a distribution, theirs. Telling men to be more like women in consumption is a non-starter. And it doesn’t achieve anything. Unless guilting people is the strategy. It won’t work imo
Comments
The similar study on fashion would read: WOMEN’S HABIT POLLUTES MORE THAN MEN
If we ever were going to go towards meatless (which is NOT the idea of the study) we would just produce less and less new calves as we need less beef. No "destruction of trillions".