Granted  isn't a great source, but hard to find.
Eating _less_ meat (and less red meat in particular) is still beneficial. One doesn't need to go 100% off meat to have a very positive effect.
I eat a mostly vegan diet, which I think still counts, but in many people's books it doesn't matter because of the 2 servings of meat/eggs I have a week. That's ridiculous, and makes these discussions about ideology rather than positive measurable changes.
Veggie burgers are getting damn good these days too. If people would just give this a try (and leave out the politics), I think they'd find 3+ days a week without meat is no problem.
Also - this article points out some extreme flaws in the original Guardian story: https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-... , quote "in the USA, fossil fuels are responsible for over 10 times more human-caused greenhouse gas emissions than animal agriculture."
Sounds like some extreme skepticism is warranted when interpreting these numbers (as usual).
A talk I attended by this same author, in maybe 2010, is what caused me to dramatically decrease my meat intake. His framing was compelling: eating meat is bad for several reasons, but also enjoyable and hard to avoid, so just eat a lot less.
Since that day my intake has easily been < 50% of what it was before, probably closer to 75% less. I just don't eat meat unless I have a good reason to: social gathering/celebration, really bad alternatives, or just a day where my willpower is low due to some other emotional load.
It really hasn't been hard, and is getting easier with things like Impossible Burger.
Works well for me.
I dream of a world of less laws. A world where if a boss sees that an employee performs better at home, he can let them. And where he can also choose not to.
This is definitely not what's gonna happen if we want to tackle climate change. As for the remote working, I guess that more than a fair assessment from employers, there is some cultural resistance that could be changed with a bit of encouragement.
When they say 'pollution' they are completely ignoring CO2 emissions and only focusing on things like sulphur dioxide. So yes, it's not a conspiracy that you're seeing many articles about not eating meat, and not many about not taking cruises.
From your link:
>Even so, with cars releasing so little in the way of pollutants compared to larger forms of travel, it means you don't have to feel guilty about enjoying the wastefulness that is motorsport.
This is just sad.
I applaud the general HN community for taking a stand against the problem and making sacrifices, but the reality is that most other people won't, and I think we should have that discussion.
IF this is the crisis we are being assured it is, the only solution is technological. We've spent thousands of years improving the quality of the life of the average human and now a new set of aspiring tyrants on a great moral jihad believe we must reduce our quality of life.
It won't work. And the fight that might come to pass would be a catastrophe unto itself.
We either deal with this technologically or it doesn't get dealt with at all.
The same should be said for cities refusing to build homes for affordable living and where public transportation should make sense contrary to owning personal transportation. The newer generation isn't going to just adapt to a lesser quality lifestyle in the current climate of seeing their parents afford homes in their early 20s and with higher education being without debt. The young generation has a mentality that it isn't about them at all and they're not going to adapt. The older generation is making off like bandits and similarly will do nothing.