[manux]

> Getting China to stop coal would be more effective than getting the USA to stop beef.

Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do". Both _must_ be done.

[Zababa]

> Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do".

I don't agree. We have limited time and energy to act. Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste, compared to using that time and energy to focus on a more important problem. I think focusing on moral imperatives instead of the most efficient actions is actually dangerous, as it's a denial of the reality we live in.

[sinemetu11]

> Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste

It's a problem. Most americans consume way more meat than what they could possibly need and they do it because they've heard they need lots of protein which could come from many other sources besides dead animals.