There are an estimated 1.475 billion cars/trucks/vans in the world, as of 2023. 8 million is 0.005% of 1.475 billion.
Now, if they’re going by the number of vehicles in the UK, then that number is obviously different. 41.2 million estimated vehicles in the UK. 8 million is a significantly larger percentage in that equation (19.4%). They also don’t mention whether they’re talking about ICE or electric cars, but I think it’s safe to assume ICE. In 2023 there were 851,000 licensed zero emissions vehicles in the UK, up 57% from the prior year.
I’m a strong proponent for cutting your beef, lamb, cheese, coffee, and chocolate consumption , as they’re among the worst, emissions-wise (bearing in mind this chart is by kilogram, not by calorie) by a long-shot, but we should be realistic about the things that are likely to do the most good.
We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf
8 metres of cars??? What is that these days, one ford f150?
Additional note: per UK. :) The predicted effect, either in meters or millions of cars, is if the UK inhabitants currently eating a high-meat diet switched to a low-meat diet.
I exclusively drive strech limos
Eight-metre cars.
Astute
“I want to help save the earth!”
“Great! Eat less meat.”
" . . . . No."
I mean, I’m 90% veg for environmental reasons mostly. But every time we share this narrative that the effort needs to be on us while the true culprits are literally upping their consumption is fucking sick. Don’t guilt people for not doing 1% of what is needed while the people/corpos doing the other 99% are pushing this “personal responsibility” narrative and literally created the language to deflect blame. We should be way more upset and spend 20000x the effort shaming and shutting down those organizations.
I wouldn’t worry much about the “I’m doing X more to offset you doing Y!” crowd. Probably a few act like that but firstly they’ll say it to everyone they don’t like (and one meat eater eating 2x meat can’t feasibly offset more than one vegan, so their impact is limited) and secondly most of them are just ragebaiting.
The same people post shit like “omg getting a Starbucks!!!” under videos calling for boycotts due to Gaza.
I’m definitely not worried about the people saying they’ll spite-eat more meat. I’m talking about us putting so much effort into shaming people for not going veg—so I’m talking about the opposite.
The blame isn’t at our feet. It’s not on us. That’s the companies literally pitting us against each other, baiting us into shaming other .00002% contributors to climate change while they, the true 99.99998% culprits, increase their output and greenwash their literal mass murder crimes.
Your numbers are way off here. (https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/research-report-carbon-inequality-era.pdf ) in 2025, the top 1% only accounted for 15% of global emissions. The rest are still generated by the general public. Sure, per person, the richest 1% have a disproportionally higher impact, but on a large scale, they dont matter that much.
Pushing this narrative takes the incentive of reducing your own impact away.
That study doesn’t account for what their money and influence does. These people use their money to, sure, fly private jets and heat massive houses and drive big luxury cars and eat exotic foods. But they also use it to prop up massive businesses, push for outsourcing, drill, mine. We don’t. That’s what I’m talking about.
That is what needs to change. And that isn’t quantified. It can’t be. But that is insurmountable.
But then you look at things like this and we can start to understand how massive the imbalance is.
They dont drill and mine for fun. They do it because people consume their products. Sure, they do a lot of manipulating and lobbying to ensure that doesnt change, but the decision stilllies with the consumer.
‘I wont change my behaviour because the rich manipulate us not to change our behaviour so the system has to change’ will never bring any change.
Politics does not know what inside the populations heads. They wouldnt know if 90% of the population wants automobile companies banned when everyone is still using cars. Sure, there are questionnaires and statistics but thats not what drives politics. Its where the moneys at.
‘I won’t change my behavior because the rich manipulate us
I think you missed the part where I said I have changed my behavior to be kinder to the environment. I don’t drive, I ride my bike most places or use PT, I rarely eat meat, I don’t order things online, especially from Amazon and major retailers like that. Doing what we can is always great.
My entire point is that we are responsible for 20% of emissions and massive corporations are responsible for 80%. And then when you factor in the fact that the richest 1% account for an inordinate amount of individual emissions—I mean, it feels like you’re going way out of your way to throw yourself over the puddle of blame so the poor, poor wealthy elite don’t get their farragamo loafers a little damp.
No shit companies need customers, but that just feels so incredibly disingenuous of an excuse when you factor in the decades—centuries of lobbying, covering scientific reports on the subject, recklessness with environmental safety to save a few thousand dollars, the endless outsourcing to bring profits up, the endless greenwashing.
It’s pretty goddamn tough to shield your eyes from the truth that the wealthiest among us are largely responsible for the current climate catastrophe, but you’re somehow finding a way and don’t see how ridiculous it is to throw yourself between the truth and them.
I absolutely agree with you. Meat is something that has a big impact on the climate and this is something that we as the consumers actively can control. If society decides to buy less and instead higher quality meat the demand will go down and therefore the CO2 footprint. However, this is nothing that is possible without the government supporting this change.
and this is something that we as the consumers actively can control.
didn’t you try that?
society decides to buy less and instead higher quality meat the demand will go down and therefore the CO2 footprint
this isn’t causal
I may have articulated myself badly. What I mean is the following: If I decide to instead eat e. G. 1kg of low quality meat every week I am responsible (by eating meat) for an amount x of CO2 emissions. If I now switch to only 500g of higher quality meat the amount of CO2 emissions goes down to about 1/2x(I know this isn’t exactly true, due to the lost efficiency, but for bigger reductions its absolutely true, that the amount if CO2 you emitted goes down).
If I decide to instead eat e. G. 1kg of low quality meat every week I am responsible (by eating meat) for an amount x of CO2 emissions.
I don’t think that’s true. those emissions happen regardless of whether you eat it. they happen regardless of whether you buy it.
Source please.
Your analysis undermines genuine science by disregarding the reduction in demand which reduces the supply and forming a data set with a sample of 1.
it’s obvious that the emissions happen before you decide whether to purchase a product. that’s how linear time works.
reduction in demand which reduces the supply
this isn’t causal
Sure, it’s more than just encouraging people to drop meat and dairy. It’s also voting for people who will make it financially impossible for those industries to continue.
It doesn’t matter if you put 2000x your effort into something if it has no effect. If you spend all your day shaming these corporations on lemmy that won’t do anything. So the question should be what actions can make an effect?
Protests don’t really do much. Electoral politics, at least here in the u.s. , are completely captured by these corporations and will never truly challenge them. I doubt what just happened in NYC is a valid tactic either. A revolution or even just a general strike is pretty much out of the picture right now.
The best and only way to get at the mega corporations causing all the climate change is to boycott them. The meat industry is burning the Amazon and emitting tons of methane, boycott them and eat less / no meat. The fossil fuel industry is lobbying congress to deny climate change while increasing production and emitting more every year, boycott them and buy less gas by driving less or taking public transit.
In this capitalist hellscape the only real choice we have is of consumption, and choosing what to consume and more importantly what not to consume is the only real way we can effect the system.
The best and only way to get at the mega corporations causing all the climate change is to boycott them.
Sorry to say this, but these boycotts rarely do anything. If enough people would boycott some company, or business practice to matter only a little bit, then there also would be enough people to effect politics to try to get better regulation in place, via electoralism, direct action of just getting actively involved in politics.
" If enough people boycott the meat industry, then it’s enough to cause political change." I’m not seeing a downside here to doing something versus not doing something.
I ain’t gonna stop eating meat to save 100g of CO2 a year while Taylor Swift takes her jet when she needs to tinkle.
Why is your moral compass calibrated according to the worst people? Is not being the worst possible human being good enough?
Also, as long the general public doesnt change whats acceptable and what not through their actions, why would the rich change anything? Theyre not the ones who will suffer from climate change and they dont care.
It’s about efficiency.
What’s better? Forcing 1000000 people to eat bugs and beans, or summarily executing one Elon Musk?
You dont need to force anyone. People make their own decisions.
By the same reasoning, would you abolish elections because letting a single person decide is more efficient?
In theory, I agree with you, it is way more efficient to just ban cars, ban billionaires, distribute their money and end world hunger. But thats not realistic. There is absolutely no indication that any politician will even consider any of that, as long as the population still keeps driving around in massive SUVs, eating mass produced meat and buying everything from Amazon.
Man you guys sure love to jump to absurd conclusions using apples to oranges comparisons… First the guy comparing eating beans to child abuse, now you… It’s almost as if trying to force your lame lifestyle on billions of people requires leaps of logic only a protein deprived brain can achieve.
First off, you can’t measure the efficiency of one person deciding vs multiple.
You can, however, determine how much co2 one person emits.
There’s also no indication that politicians will ever consider banning meat and yet here you are trying to make people eat beans on toast every meal.
Look, all I’m saying, if you truly care about the planet, instead of trying to force lifestyle changes on 99% of the population, there’s 1% of them that emits 15% of CO2 without really contributing anything useful to society.
There’s a quick ROI. Be the change you want to see in the world.
Or you could eat beans I guess.
You are strawmanning and coping so hard I dont have enough time to address all of that, so ill just pick a few.
-
Im not trying to force lifestyle changes on anyone and I dont know why youre claiming that. I am simply arguing which life choices can make a difference and which cant.
-
What exactly do you suggest the average person does to ensure the 1% stop emitting 15%? Vote green? That has worked wonderfully over the past 30 years right?
-
Is ‘be the change you want to see in the world’ supposed to be a summary of my arguments? Coz it sure as hell doesnt fit you attitude of ‘dont change anything as long as rich people dont change’.
-
Yes, yes you are. The only reason you are arguing right now is because you’re mad that I refuse to stop eating meat while some rich fuck’s personal jet flies around the world just so he can have a shit in a different toilet every day. If you didn’t care about changing my way, you’d be doing something else.
-
You really want to get politicians involved, huh. You haven’t figured out yet that they’re part of the problem?
-
Be the change you want to see in the world is meant as an encouraging statement to go and take things into your own hands instead of relying on third parties to fix your problems.
-
That has worked wonderfully over the past 30 years right?
veganism has been around since the '40s and the meat industry grows every year.
-
I ain’t gonna stop beating my children while Israel drops bombs on schools to take out a hamas laptop.
Eat your bugs, you need to offset the damage caused by a billionaire’s third yacht.
What is with you guys and bugs? Do you really think vegetarians eat bugs or want you to eat bugs?
We eat and want you to eat beans, but I guess that’s not disgusting enough for you to get mad over.
Bugs, beans, whatever. That’s not the point.
Feel free to feel good about saving all that planet.
Oops some billionaire’s megayacht just dumped more CO2 in the atmosphere in a day than you banked by eating beans for the past decade.
But yeah, more beans please.
Also, 'people like men talk about bugs because that’s what the elite is working hard trying to manufacture that delicious bug eating consent
I will, and i will also feel good about not assaulting children even though there are people out there slaughtering droves of them.
So your evidence for this grand elite conspiracy is one article from the new York post. Tell me what’s the advertising budget for crickets, or if you’ve ever even seen an ad for crickets? Cause the advertising budget for Tyson foods alone is over $200 million . That’s just the industry itself, that doesn’t include restaurants like McDonald’s etc. That are also pushing you to buy meat. Tyson foods alone also lobbies the government to the tune of $2.8 million. The big money is not trying to get you to eat crickets, it’s trying to get you to eat meat.
Man you’re still missing the whole point of my argument just because I said bugs, huh?
Your brain that starved for real protein? Try meat.
Relatable
“new” study, draws half it’s methodology from referencing older papers, including the problematic poore-nemecek 2018 piece.
great. but why don’t we go double and also take 8m cars off the road?
The price of electric cars will do that on its own, once we phase out petrol.
I didn’t eat meat today so apparently I took 8m cars off the road.
I refuse to drive, I walk and transit, 1 car off road for decades.
How long have you been doing that, and I’m guessing you live in a city?
Yes, I live in a city. When young living with my parents (2 cars as they both worked and couldn’t car pool) I lived in what we called the “land of 3 numbered busses” aka the suburbs. I decided before 16 I didn’t want to drive, so never did. Started then to make my footprint as small as possible. Easiest way to make my footprint small was to live downtown where almost everything I need is 20 mins away by foot, sadly if I move now I will not be able to afford anywhere near where I am. I’m 50 next year.
Good for you. Personally, I can’t stand living in the city nowadays. I certainly can’t justify that rent.
Right now, due to how long I have been there, I am paying less for a 3 bedroom apt than one would for a 1 bed or bachelor
Dang. Lucky. Is that rent control or do you own?
Let’s aim for at least a nice billion.
While I support not eating meat, I am also realistic and reducing is good enough.
But the problem is that not every meat is created the same. There is one footprint for meat feom animals that are grazing and are used in regenerative agriculture and much bigger from industrial farming of cows fed with irrigated alfalfa in desert.
While I support not eating meat, I am also realistic and reducing is good enough.
No, we gotta completely uproot the animal agriculture industry if we want to save the planet and no “regenerative farming cattle” still uses too much land/water and has bovines abused and slaughtered for nothing.
Well okay then.
If my only options are, “Continue eating all the meat you want and the planet is fucked.”
…or, “Stop eating all meat and go completely vegan…and the planet is still fucked unless everyone else does it too.”
Well…
… fire up that grill, man, I’ve got some steaks and burgers in the freezer.
God, seeing the comments from some people that I’m even nominally on the “same side of the aisle” makes me see how the other side finds it so easy to not only ridicule, but automatically unite in opposition against it.
Like, nothing brings me closer to being understanding and sympathetic to the people I’d normally be ideologically set totally against…like visiting Lemmy and seeing the shit flowing from the people I broadly tend to align with.
Okay, then I might as well just keep eating as much meat as I do now though? If we have to be perfect and most people aren’t going to be perfect, there’s no point in even trying.
Or maybe get off your high horse, accept that humanity isn’t perfect, and try to get people to eat less meat first, then worry about getting them to eat no meat at all. 50% of people doing 70% of what they should is more useful than 10% doing 100%.
There are no baby steps to stoping animal abuse. It’s not hard to follow a 31 day challenge.
Do that first then comeback critic my “big ask”.
Each child born produces as much CO2 as 71 people going vegan for life. That ignores all the other ways humans pollute. Given that 130M babies are born each year, even if the entire planet went vegan right now (forever), it would only offset the next 324 days. If you care about the environment at all, you would focus all of your ire on the the real danger: countries with high birth rates.
However I suspect this has nothing to do with the environment for you. There is a duplicitous tactic employed by vegans which seeks to hijack the environmental movement for moral aims. People such as yourself have a moral problem with eating meat, and you know that many others care about the environment, so you attempt to wed the two. I am of course happy to be proven wrong.
Isn’t the calculation misleading? It looks like it calculates the modern lifestyle CO2 and applies it to a baby. So the argument just goes, if no people, then no co2. Which is correct, although completely skipping anything about the actual underlying systemic issues for producing this much co2 in the first place.
This isn’t an argument about morality or veganism, the link just seemed like a hit peace against environmentalism
Which in effect tells me that we need to be even more radical in policies to bring this to net-negative. It just doesn’t help when there are a lot less people in the future as we need to get net-negative. Fewer people means also potentially less leverage here.
But I agree that we need to split between moral and environmental factors (though it doesn’t help when these are often correlated).
Your effect on people opting NOT to eat less meat because you’re trying to moralize them is going to outdo your personal contribution at least 10 to 1, maybe 100 to 1 if you interact with enough people.
That’s a straw-man fallacy. Just because you’re trying doesn’t mean you have to be perfect right away.
I also believe that we have all reason to go completely vegan long-term. Thanks to food-science, it’s not a radical shift anymore, just a slow adjustment and a little bit of discipline until you’ve adapted that new habit. I was a very much into meat and slowly adapted to a vegan diet, it get’s easier over time until a point (for me at least) that you even prefer the vegan/vegetarian option.
I agree, but the other commenter specifically was saying that it’s a case of do or do not, there is no try.
It should certainly be the first step. I’ve started like this, continuously less meat, your gut-biome slowly adjusts. I’m still not vegan/vegetarian but basically eat no meat anymore (mostly leftovers of others). A good part of it is that I just don’t really like meat anymore (tastes kind of rotten?).
I recommend going this route, as I think it’s easier to get into a vegan diet.
That said I think we (as a global society) should strive towards eating only vegan long-term. We got the food science and it just feels wrong (moral, inefficiency, health) and isn’t sustainable.
why are the slabs of meat in little towels like they’re on a spa day
It’s cheesecloth, and not sure. Dry aging? My immediate thought is someone has an Egyptian predilection. What are mummies, if not dry aged meat.
Its also way better for you.
Legit, I was so warned about eating disorders when I was young, I never learned to just eat light and how fasting is a thing.
Eat some nuts and enjoy some other stuff. Meat shoumd ve cuts, and it should only 2-3 times a week.
removed by mod
It’s far more nutrient rich than any of the overly processed vegan garbage
Nothing more nutritious than slop. Keep stuffing your face with hamburger
removed by mod
Lies again, the vast majority of meat is factory farmed.
The exceptional rare “local farms” do not stop the exploitation and slaughter.
removed by mod
Meat requires more plants than directly eating them. So if you really cared about the plants you would go vegan.
You’re filling out my Carnist bingo sheet proving once again that you were never vegan.
removed by mod
It’s just so hard for your brain to comprehend maybe someone escaped the fear mongering and ego tickling of veganism.
That’s literally projection, as you were just fearmongering about plant-based alternatives.
And way to ignore the fact that plants are probably crying as they’re ripped from their roots and start releasing toxins as defense mechanism.
Ignores the fact meat requires more plants and that plants do not have a central nervous system to process pain.
Meat requires more plants than directly eating them.
this isn’t true. most of what is fed to livestock is crop seconds and industrial waste. I don’t eat corncobs or corn stalks, or soy cake. but if I eat a pig that has been fed those, no more plants have been harmed.
overly processed vegan garbage.
Am not vegan, but your issue here is eating all these “plant-based” ultra-processed food and thinking that’s the only way. Just eat more veggie and mushroom and bean.
Yeah but the slop being market to gen pop is literally same quality as a hotdog
Great an astroturfer…
You’re lying about ever being vegan as if you were you would’ve known that processed vegan food products are not the only alternatives to eating meat as there are pulses, peas, beans, lentils, nuts, seeds and whole grains you can have instead.
Plant-based meat is actually healthier than processed meat and red meat.
you would’ve known that processed vegan food products are not the only alternatives
I think you should give them the benefit of the doubt in this instance – they could be dumb as a rock.
They’re clearly trolling, I have never heard of this instance.
removed by mod
Someone is trolling.
removed by mod
Says the person obviously lying about having lower levels of energy despite the fact studies show that vegans are actually healthier.
A study published last week in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that dietary protein derived from plant sources built muscle just as well as protein from meat sources. However meat also comes with additional components that are harmful to our health, including antibiotic residue, hormones, saturated fat, trans-fats, endotoxins, cholesterol, Neu5Gc, heterocyclic amines and contaminants such as high levels of metals including copper and arsenic. These undesirable elements increase inflammation and promote various diseases thus making meat a less desirable option when building muscle and long term health are considered.
A plant-based diet consists of exclusively plant foods, including fruit, vegetables, grains, and legumes, and avoids meat, dairy, and eggs. Plant-based foods are full of fiber, rich in vitamins and minerals, free of cholesterol, and low in calories and saturated fat. Eating a variety of these foods provides all the protein, calcium, and other essential nutrients your body needs. It’s important to include a reliable source of vitamin B12 in your diet. You can easily meet your vitamin B12 needs with a daily supplement or fortified foods, such as vitamin B12-fortified breakfast cereals, plant milks, and nutritional yeast. Those who eat a plant-based diet lower their risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other health conditions. Research also shows that a plant-based diet can be less expensive that an omnivorous diet.
removed by mod
removed by mod
You got some sources for that claim, cause transportation accounts for 28% of u.s. ghg emissions and 57% of that is light duty vehicles, only 3% is ships and boats. So if we delete every car emissions, at least in the u.s. , would go down by 15%, not enormous but also not a drop in the bucket.
I’m all for the other solutions you mentioned, besides nuking China, but we can’t pretend like meat consumption and car use aren’t large factors in climate change that we’ll have to address.
removed by mod
Don’t forget cruise ships and power plants in countries that either lack emissions control or bribe their way out of them.
According to this compelling article, a significant portion of cargo ships could be electrified.
removed by mod
I am a fan of context. There were about 29.1 million vehicles on the road in the USA in 2023.
8 million is a lot, and part of the overall solution.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/859950/vehicles-in-operation-by-quarter-united-states/
The article is just about the u.k. The number would be larger for the u.s. due to both population size, and that the u.s. eats more meat, around 50% more. Although we do drive more per car here as well, so that may effect it as well.
You transition out of meat to save the environment.
I transitioned out of meat because of meat recalls and all the chemicals they sneak in a cow, and was ripping the hardest farts that would clear out a room.
We are not the same.
Dat odorless, anxiety-free, harmles fun of vegan farts!
Not kidding. Had a vegan apologize when she ripped a loud fart because steamed carrots made her gassy.
Not a single person smelled anything.
A bit underwhelming when put into the context of the estimated number of cars being closer to 1.5B, but worthwhile to pursue regardless.
This would be 8 million cars in the UK alone, which has a population of 68 million.
Serves me right for not reading the article. I’ll keep my shame up for display in public
No need, most articles are bad and much longer than needed. Luckily chatgpt&friends are good at summarizing.
Thank you for your service 🫡
Except it’s not because the industry is not going to reduce its production and instead of being used it will just be thrown away at the store. They would require a significant chunk of the population to get on board with this to such a degree that it forced them to reduce production which will literally never happen there’s other more realistic things we can be doing
Raising animals costs a huge amount of money. Who can afford to raise animals that aren’t selling?
The entire point of my message was that they won’t stop selling, my point was that it’s not realistic to expect a large enough portion of the population to do this for it to matter. It’s just not going to happen no matter what we do
Oh you’re so god now saying “this will happen or this will never happen” bunch of arrogant rubbish.
You’re lying because you don’t want it to change you want to keep eating meat while the planet gets destroyed for your selfish desires. As they’re cutting down the Amazon for beef farms.
Research has shown that meat consumption is going down and the vegan population is rapidly growing so your stance is wrong.
I do love your assumptions. I actually use meat pretty sparingly. My diet mostly consists of random slow cooker meals made with Brussel sprouts, broccoli, asparagus, beans(of various types), potatoes, rice and ofc spinach. In various combinations not allmat once ofc.
It’s easy to make because you literally just toss it into the slow cooker for 8 hrs and walk away and it’s way cheaper per meal than with meat. Chase with bread, salad, or yogurt depending on your mood.
My personal diet doesn’t change reality, there is a significant enough portion of the population that will never even consider dropping meat to keep meat production going strong. I’d rather spend my effort on trying to reduce electrical waste. Like electric dryers for example. Wildly wasteful. Really good high quality heat pump dryers that are basically just as fast exist and they use 1/4 the amount of power. I’ve already talked to several people into getting them, 5 to be more exact. Even just those 5 is a significant chunk of power standard resistive electric are insanely inefficient.
I’ve also been attempting to convince people to go with chest refrigerators. AKA chest freezers but at fridge temperatures as they too will use a fraction of the power. They also don’t lose the entirety of their cold every time you open the door causing them to cycle again. But even that is a hard sell, it’s a little less convenient requires more floor space and makes it so people can’t just throw multiple months worth of random stuff in their fridge and forget about it as it piles up on shelfs. Which is enough to turn a lot of people off the idea
meat consumption is going down and the vegan population is rapidly growing
can you cite this?
Good point, but the market is very inefficient system for determining supply.
And big companies have other methods for dealing with low demand like
- Lobby the government (and the government will give in)
- Just targeting rich people. It is known that they contribute to climate change much more than working class people. As long as the rich are free to do whatever they like the planet will continue to rot.
It would still be way less profitable in the end and would raise questions by the public as to why so much money being wasted on a cruel inefficient system.
That is what I am saying it will become less profitable after years, we need climate change solutions now.
And most people are very good at ignoring cruelty.
The People who want baby steps don’t give a damn about the environment. It’s just business as usual for them.
No, it will increase the production costs and reduce the profitability of meat products.
Going vegan is the best thing you can do for the environment as an individual. As animal agriculture causes at least 14.5% of emissions, uses up 75% more land and wastes ungodly amounts of water.
A whole foods plant-based will reduce your risk from chronic diseases and lengthen your life expectancy.
Do the 30 day vegan challenge and do better for yourself and the environment:
making food is a good use of land and water
I feel like you missed the part of my message where I said it wasn’t realistic. You are correct that if we could convince a large portion of the population to switch it would reduce profits and ultimately cause the industry to scale down. The entire point of my message was that that’s not going to happen no matter how much you talk about how good it is no matter how many facts you give you are simply not going to get a majority of the population to give up or even meaningfully reduce their meat consumption.
So instead of wasting your time spending your wheels on something that will never happen you could be doing something more productive that actually has a chance of succeeding.
A bunch of rubbish veganism is growing all around the world and yet you’re here arrogantly saying that things won’t change because you think you somehow know everything.
Hey how about you cut down on private jets and I keep eating my burgers
Two things can both be done. Saying one thing is worse is only an excuse to do nothing. Those rich fucks on their jets will probably point to companies polluting more. Do what’s best and advocate the same for others. Everyone just pointing to something else is how we end up in the situation we’re in. “I got mine. Go attack them!” Changing ourselves allows us to see all issues and work on them all.
Yeah right, eating less meat smells awful lot like “calculate your carbon footprint”
