Depending on the surroundings it sounds quite sane. In the village I grew up in we had 20km/h (12-13mph) which i think was quite reasonable. When there are hedges and stuff to the side you need to be able to stop if someone walks out.

Ottawa is on the same latitude as Venice so it’s not like canada is very northly (though i know canada has a much more varied temperature range). That aside i think there are many reasons, like the southern countries are not as wealthy as US and theres a culture of using other methods to survive the heat such as building colors, not paving every cm^2 of land etc. And if we look at more northen Eu countries like where I live (sweden) the highest ever measured temp is 38c (100.4f). So anyone here who needs an AC for the few days when the temp is above 25c is a card carrying bitch.

I picked bias because it was basically the first statement that i could remember that i disagreed with. No other real reason, I didn’t want to pick a single point from the video since i didnt want to presume that you were on board with the entirety.

1. I don’t think I can show where his funding comes from so lets strike that one.
2. I don’t think I could show that all his sources are biased (I suspect a couple are, but most of them are probably more or less objective). So lets strike that option as well.
3. I do think there is an argument to be made based on his other content that he’s biased.

I looked at his substack and there over 50% 27/51 counted (just skimmed the borderline ones) were tied to highprotein/meat lifestyle or directly/indirectly anti-vegan. There were also a lot of masculinity/testosterone ones that i think are quite relevant, but I didn’t count those. He clearly makes it a large part of his brand either way.

Sure, it absolutely varies from person to person. A poorer person probably isn’t flying around on vacations and eating lots of steak so they aren’t producing that much co2e anyway. So for some people it could be that the only action of any significang impact would be to vote and push the government to force everyone else to stop being so selfish.

I absolutely agree that a global political effort is required to force companies and people to make the required changes. Even if the transportation is an indirect emission I would still say that the consumer is largely responsible. Like if I buy an avocado that is flown from South America to Sweden then I ought to take that emission into account when considering the purchase.

The only emissions that i would fully ascribe to the companies are the hidden emissions that the consumer cant be expected to know of. An example would be a big swedish meat company selling meat as “swedish meat” but in reality they took swedish raised animals, transporting them to poland for slaughter and then back to save a bit of money.

If everyone changed their lifestyle the we would solve the climate crisis. It’s not like the big corporations release co2e because it’s fun, they do it because the people want the products (and they want them at a cheap price). Corporations are no angels by any means but they are directly downstream from the people.

It’s obviously more complicated than that but the idea that big corporations have the sole responsibility is just shifting the blame. You are still responsible for the portion that you put into the atmosphere.

Out of curiosity, what does that actually mean (political, personal, etc)? What kind of actions have you done in this category?

I agree that some forms of actions against companies could be valuable, but as a way to change public opinion.

I agree that the site i linked is (probably) somewhat biased, but that does not matter at all in this context. There is nothing wrong with using data provided by biased people if you are aware of the bias and take it into account when using the data.

We need to scale this argument down though. I refuse to take an argument over text if we don’t just laserfocus on the argument. If you have a problem with a source i put forth then just say that without adressing its claims and we can discuss if the source is acceptable before continuing.

If we start over where I should have started in the first place. What do I need to show to convince you that he’s biased? (If you disagree with any prior statments in this comment lets start arguing those first. I don’t want to have a multithreaded argument)

Absolutely

Even if I agreed with you, voting is still important. We need to do what we can in the current situation even if you don’t think it is the full solution.

What type of action do you propose instead?

You didn’t. My point was more that voting isn’t enough. Just because there are worse people, that doesn’t mean that we are free of blame. The entire west is living very unsustainable lifestyles. So we both need to stop the big polluters by voting and we also need to do our own part to strive towards reaching sustainability.

I didn’t even mention capitalism? Are you responding to the wrong person? My argument is that people ought to vote for the more environmental option.

Okay, I would argue that the guy in the video is extremely biased. I don’t know how you would determine bias in a person, but I think that a clear indication is to not caveat any of the cited sources with their various flaws in methodology and only show studies “in your favour” assuming they don’t all show that. I looked at criticism towards the videos claims by Nutrivore criticism. I read half of the critique but only doublechecked a couple of the studies that i could access.

If you disagree with my assessment that the video is very biased either put forth your own definition of bias or I could pick a couple of the (in my opinion) biased claims and we can talk about those.

I don’t mind arguing (in fact i really like arguing) and I also disagree with most of your points. That said however If I am to argue then I don’t want to do massive walls of text and rather pick a single well defined point. So if you want to do that as well then put forward a single point which you feel strongly about and I’ll say if I disagree or not (alternatively I could pick something from your text, I just wouldn’t want to feel like I’ve picked your weakest point).

Yeah I mean I agree with you. Most people who won’t even take basic personal actions like not flying on vacation twice a yeah and not buying a stupid oversized car. If those people were put in the same position as these CEOs you can bet your left buttcheek that they would maximize profits in the exact same way. We need to both take individual action and also hold each other accountable by changing the law and applying social pressure.

My take on this (an I’m vegan so there’s a possibility of bias) is that most of the mainstream claims such as there being no health downside and a plantbased diet is significantly less harmful for the environment are simply true.

But there is a subset of vegans that for some reason believe they need to justify it further than that who say that plant based diets have some nigh on magical health abilities and they feel so much better etc, pretty much all of that is some form of bs. Just like the idea that humans didn’t need to eat meat in the far past due to b12.

All in all, it’s an infected debate where vegans/nonvegans just throw false shit out to see what sticks.

I love shakshouka with aubergine that shit’s great. Anyway, vegan here and most of the stuff i eat is indian food (a lot of that stuff is vegan or at least vegetarian by default), middle eastern food with baba ganoush/hummus/falafel or east asian foods with tofu or tempeh. I find that just veganizing meatdishes take a bit of skill and fantasy for it not to just become a lackluster version of the thing you already like and are used to.

It’s at least not more expensive (maybe unless you live in bumfucknowhere and they won’t properly stock beans).

It’s 100% personal responsibility, it’s just that part of that responsibility is to vote/convince others for more systemic change. All the kids just blaming the “biggest 100 companies” while not voting and making no lifestyle changes are just as bad as the people they critizise.

It’s not a problem with the platform, any online setting that has diverse enough views are going to require that. To get away from them you need to just put out views that basically everyone agrees with, which can be done by either sticking to echochambers or just having absurdly accepted views.