So would cracking down on the unnecessary private flights billionaires take.
Reducing meat intake isn't just about reducing carbon footprint, more importantly it frees up land to be rehabilitated so we can rebuild forests to absorb emissions.
The impact of eating meat is way bigger than the few private flights you are talking about, though those obviously shouldnt exist as well.
It’s true that for an average Brit, eating beef 3x a week is worse for the environment in a year than their annual holiday to Greece.
But billionaires aren’t just taking “a few private flights” they’re taking flights more often than I eat meat in the first place.
I’ve cut down on meat and my water and electricity usage, I haven’t been on a plane in 10 years. I use the car about once a month. I recycle, reuse, repurpose, I very very rarely buy new things. I’m chronically ill and living in fuel poverty. I’m anaemic ffs. How much more are the poor expected to do when then rich do nothing?
There are many problems in the world. Some people like to focus on the ones with the largest impacts, where you can personally do something about it (like veganism). Others like to focus on those where few cause grossly disproportionate harm, as they seem more addressable (like private jets).
Debating the merits of focusing on one problem over another is interesting, but in my mind the time for it is not when media is being shared that bolsters a cause without coming at the expense of any others. It hurts all movements when people always undermine issues, pointing to another more important from their perspective.
I highly doubt that most people think you aren't doing enough for the environment. And I don't understand why you'd assume that as the implication of this article.
That was a really well written response and I enjoyed your insight. As for why I took personally - I was just having a bad day/week/month. Life is really fucking hard right now.
Hope it gets better for you mate. Virtual hug from a stranger.
Good summary. For me it is disproportionate harm. I am not going to yell at some regular person for liking fried chicken when their employer is flying on a private jet.
So if billionaires put out a statement that they will never stop private flights, and governments announce that they won't legislate on it, what's your plan? Destroy the planet out of spite?
Well first off I would suggest that they go in a submarine. Preference for one that doesn't have all those pesky regulations in the design.
After that just put a 20,000% fuel tax on private jets. I fly commercial, and my job matters a whole lot more, so can they. If Musk or Zuck doesn't show up to work tomorrow things would run slightly better.
We don't need them. They need us. They are not super geniuses they are lucky.
You missed the other person's point. It's not a game and the consequences of ignoring the problem are likely to be massive.
Also, you know who will be the absolute last to feel pain from stuff like climate change? The wealthy. The overwhelming majority of people that will be affected aren't privileged and in fact the least privileged are going to suffer the brunt of it.
You're not going to punish the rich and powerful and make them regret their choices with this approach. By the time they're even feeling moderate discomfort, you'll be long gone.
Right so the rest of us should suffer when there is a low hanging fruit we can pick.
This isn't about punishing people. You want CO2 to go down? Go for the easy wins before you go after the harder to achieve ones. A ban on private jets would hurt effectively none of the human race. There are over 8 billion of us. It wouldn't even impact a percent of a percent. But yeah if given the option of taking someone in developing world's motorcycle away or make Bezos have to fly first class I know which I am picking.
Interesting how so many people here want to ignore the rich people who got rich off destroying the environment and instead want normal people to pay the price for their greed and destruction.
Perfect is the enemy of good. Trust me, I am very irritated by the complete lack of giving a fuck shown by billionaires and large companies.
But I also know that when it comes down to it the only thing they actually care about is money. And I am one of the people that provides them with that money by choosing to buy their products. Sure, it will take a significant amount of us to make a noticable impact but vegan alternatives have been becoming much more popular and prevalent because there is increasing demand. It's happening. The dairy industry obviously feels threatened with their stupid wood milk campaign and desperate attempts to ban anyone else from using the word milk.
That is something I actually have control over. I can vote accordingly to try to stop rich assholes from destroying the earth, but I don't control it alone. At least when the earth dies I can say I tried.
Perfect being the enemy of good is the exact problem here. There is a much bigger reduction in emissions by reducing meat intake, compared to already eating low amounts and going vegan.
It's easier to convince people to eat less meat. That should be the focus
In a mastodon thread this week we estimated that banning private jet usage globally would save about 100 million tonnes of CO2, while normal Americans would save 4.5 billion tonnes by reducing their consumption to global average levels.
Disproportionate harms are annoying but a tiny minority acting disproportionately still matters way less than how normal people act. Banning private jets is pointless if nothing else changes.
Because something doesn't fix a problem completely nothing can be done, yes?
Also I wonder how many times I have been stuck on the tarmac because of some private jet using my taxpayer funded airport.
New study shows that the floor is made out of floor
Imma need sources for that claim...
That better be vegan sauce
My God, just reduce your meat intake and stop being a wuss. This thread is insufferable.
Business as usual. Climate crisis is everyone's problem but me ! Everyone must make an effort, but not me !
It's the triangle of inaction. Corporations, government and people blame the two others and use it as an excuse for inaction.
I can understand it in some cases, but meat consumption ? There is no excuse to not stop or at least reduce meat consumption. It's easy to do, it's cheaper, ... And the impact of everyone not buying meat is insanely positive.
Meat is for me one of the easiest source of protein, and people in general consume already less protein than recommended. :( Many vegan option and/ or protein supplements are expensive. Vegetarian options are okay (eggs, for example) but going 100 percent vegan is difficult.
For real, I fucking love meat but I only eat it once a week now and it’s not like I’m fucking dying. And it’s not like what I’m eating now tastes bad or anything - lots of rice and beans (Brazilian style, fucking divine), potatoes and other veggies, sometimes a little tofu. It’s fine.
The world is literally dying and people are whining about hamburgers or whatever. Fucking insane man.
The problem is that, as an overall percentage of annual emissions, agriculture as a whole is only about 11%* of the total, with meat contributing to part of that amount. Similar to individual contributions, while this is an important part of the problem, it's not a big enough part that we should prioritize tackling it compared to other, significantly worse parts.
The bulk of resources should be dedicated to massively lowering energy contributions, which are a whopping 72%* of total emissions, with electricity and heat being ~31% of that amount.
it’s not a big enough part that we should prioritize tackling it compared to other, significantly worse parts.
The bulk of resources should be dedicated to massively lowering energy contributions
Yes, but reducing animal products in diets does not require any investments or resources. On large scales, it even frees up resources.
It's a decision everyone makes three times a day. You can decide against animal products on your plate and still eat a comparably tasty, healthy, affordable meal. No other way to reduce emissions is that easy. Most require upfront investments, construction work, dedication and long term commitment.
It's big enough to make us miss climate targets on its own. We have to both reduce fossil fuels and meat consumption
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
People aren't going to care enough unless its significantly cheaper than meat and equally as much effort for the consumer but a lot of vegan alternatives to meat aren't. It should be cheaper for all of the same reasons that it's more environmentally friendly. Plus why full vegan? It's more likely that people will move in small steps vegetarianism is still an option. We lose so much with the all or nothing approach.
That's kind of the direction I started going in, veganism for environmental reasons, rather than health or moral/ethical reasons. I've gone about it somewhat slowly, picking different food items to restrict from my diet and looking for non-meat/non-dairy equivalents, mostly just trying to remove any beef or dairy milk from my diet. It seems to have gotten easier in the past few years as other options have opened up.
Yeah thats a problem I have. I like some plant based meat/dairy alternatives but can't justify paying so much. Meat and dairy should be quite a bit more expensive compared to plant based.
A vegan (or low-meat diet, for that matter) does not equate to substituting meat to processed meat alternatives. Other recipes that do without any fake meat exist.
Yeah obviously but vegan meat and dairy substitutes are a good option for many people looking to replace animal products
Life in prison for the entire board of directors for the top 100 largest polluting corporations would do a lot more I bet.
This is exactly what the author of the article is trying to distract you from - corporations who caused the problem in the first place want to place the blame on individuals while companies like Exxon got rich making climate change worse even after they knew it was a problem way back in 1971.
I'm shocked!
We've been saying this for year yet people still refuse
It's just a factor of my quality of life which I'm not willing to compromise on. Surely you also have some of those.
Just completely switching to only eating chicken or a vegetarian diet gets you nearly there. No need to go completely vegan and far easier to do for someone who regularly eats beef.
Eating local meat also solves this problem.
So does eating the rich. I know which one I'd prefer
goes nuclear power does help as long it the nuclear reactor placed anywhere near the area that can earthquake
This type of rhetoric is just relieving big industries of their sole responsibility and enabling them. “It’s not my fault that I’m producing it, it’s your fault that you’re buying it” my ass. I won’t do a single shit unless the people that are actually causing this crisis do something.
In situations where the harm is caused by the industry's approach, I'd agree.
But animal products' harm is pretty inextricable, and its production is caused by consumer demand.
But, the harm IS caused by the industry’s approach. People will always demand high caloric and tasty food, there is a way to respond to that ethically and environmentally friendly, and there is shoving thousands of cows in a tiny building, pumping antibiotics and whatever they are doing for the sake of pure profit
There are high caloric tasty vegan foods available, and when they are not it's usually because they aren't in high demand. How is the onus not on the consumer for picking animal products over those?
I'm all for vilifying the Animal Agriculture industry, they do some terrible stuff that goes way beyond the harm intrinsic to factory farms. But how exactly would they meet demand without factory farming, a brutally efficient way of producing animal products?
Governments should cease subsidizing animal products (maybe help their producers transition to other production), subsidize other foods more, and enact many other policy changes besides. But in most places it can be cheap and delicious to be vegan now. I don't see how you get around personal choice being the main driver.
I agree with your point, the issue is much more nuanced then how i took it at the beginning
One father can aupport 5 sons, 5 sons can not support one father.
Demanding that we all making good decisions consistently does not work. If we want change it has to be via the government. We can pass regulations that results in less animal harm and less CO2 output.
In many cases yes, but in this case animal feed simply take up a lot of land and there's no way around it. The only way to free up that land to rehabilitate the environment is it reduce production and that means consuming it less.
I won’t do a single shit unless the people that are actually causing this crisis do something.
Companies wouldn't produce stuff but for people buying it. Naturally people who aren't willing to stop buying the product aren't going to do stuff like support legislature that makes it become a lot more expensive and/or difficult to acquire, or even forbidden entirely.
So it's political suicide for a politician to do something like that: they'll just get voted out. Without regulations forcing companies to adhere to those restrictions, it's basically business suicide to just do something that hamstrings the company's ability to produce whatever product. Their competitors will just eat them.
I'm not saying companies/the rich don't have responsibility, they absolutely do. I really think that change, for the most part, has to start with the population in general though. I definitely strongly disagree with anyone saying that consumers don't have at least equal responsibility.
Yeah exactly - just look at the protests when fuel prices had a (relatively insignificant to what would be needed) rise in recent years
A lot of people seem to think that they are free of any responsibility whatsoever and can continue living as if they are not influenced by climate change...
Ive got a question, would you be cheering if the meat industry took you up on your offer and immediately ceased all production? Or if oil companies stopped providing gasoline? The shipping industry comes to a standstill to avoid exhaust emissions, no more metal mining, natural gas plants are shut down. Does that go well for you?
So I don't know what third option you've got in mind. Either the consumer, you, are responsible for the environmental damage caused by these industries by inducing demand. Or, as you seem to be explicitly saying, the industries themselves are responsible. How the hell do you think they're gonna take responsibility in stopping the damage they're doing to the environment?
There is no option where you get to keep eating meat daily and drive a gas car, and the environment gets to recover. Either you take responsibility in stopping on your own, or the industries themselves no longer provide it to you in the first place.
To be fair, it's corporations, lobbyists and governments that made us believe that we needed these things to be successful. Entire generations morals were bought with new technology that we were convinced we needed. And then the government's created places to revolve and evolve around these technologies and put us all in a position where we'd have to give up everything in order to be able have a chance at a future. Commuters have been put in a position where they need their gas guzzlers, we can't get jobs without consistent access to a mobile phone and internet- some won't even hire you if you aren't on socials.
Sure we can take steps to combat the problem, but the problem is still being shoved down our throats under the guise of success and happiness so most don't even have a clear idea of what the problem is. The industries themselves are responsible, they created this problem and they pay off governments for the ability to continue this problem. We as consumers can have a small impact on this, but without rallying 8 billion people against it, it is useless- the industries only have to convince a handful of people that their way is the right way.
You make it sound as though personal responsibility and discipline will show us the way out of the darkness, but that is disingenuous at best.
To be fair, it’s corporations, lobbyists and governments that made us believe that we needed these things to be successful.
God this sounds pathetic. No one made you do shit.
So would cracking down on the unnecessary private flights billionaires take.
Reducing meat intake isn't just about reducing carbon footprint, more importantly it frees up land to be rehabilitated so we can rebuild forests to absorb emissions.
The impact of eating meat is way bigger than the few private flights you are talking about, though those obviously shouldnt exist as well.
It’s true that for an average Brit, eating beef 3x a week is worse for the environment in a year than their annual holiday to Greece.
But billionaires aren’t just taking “a few private flights” they’re taking flights more often than I eat meat in the first place.
I’ve cut down on meat and my water and electricity usage, I haven’t been on a plane in 10 years. I use the car about once a month. I recycle, reuse, repurpose, I very very rarely buy new things. I’m chronically ill and living in fuel poverty. I’m anaemic ffs. How much more are the poor expected to do when then rich do nothing?
There are many problems in the world. Some people like to focus on the ones with the largest impacts, where you can personally do something about it (like veganism). Others like to focus on those where few cause grossly disproportionate harm, as they seem more addressable (like private jets).
Debating the merits of focusing on one problem over another is interesting, but in my mind the time for it is not when media is being shared that bolsters a cause without coming at the expense of any others. It hurts all movements when people always undermine issues, pointing to another more important from their perspective.
I highly doubt that most people think you aren't doing enough for the environment. And I don't understand why you'd assume that as the implication of this article.
That was a really well written response and I enjoyed your insight. As for why I took personally - I was just having a bad day/week/month. Life is really fucking hard right now.
Hope it gets better for you mate. Virtual hug from a stranger.
Good summary. For me it is disproportionate harm. I am not going to yell at some regular person for liking fried chicken when their employer is flying on a private jet.
So if billionaires put out a statement that they will never stop private flights, and governments announce that they won't legislate on it, what's your plan? Destroy the planet out of spite?
Well first off I would suggest that they go in a submarine. Preference for one that doesn't have all those pesky regulations in the design.
After that just put a 20,000% fuel tax on private jets. I fly commercial, and my job matters a whole lot more, so can they. If Musk or Zuck doesn't show up to work tomorrow things would run slightly better.
We don't need them. They need us. They are not super geniuses they are lucky.
You missed the other person's point. It's not a game and the consequences of ignoring the problem are likely to be massive.
Also, you know who will be the absolute last to feel pain from stuff like climate change? The wealthy. The overwhelming majority of people that will be affected aren't privileged and in fact the least privileged are going to suffer the brunt of it.
You're not going to punish the rich and powerful and make them regret their choices with this approach. By the time they're even feeling moderate discomfort, you'll be long gone.
Right so the rest of us should suffer when there is a low hanging fruit we can pick.
This isn't about punishing people. You want CO2 to go down? Go for the easy wins before you go after the harder to achieve ones. A ban on private jets would hurt effectively none of the human race. There are over 8 billion of us. It wouldn't even impact a percent of a percent. But yeah if given the option of taking someone in developing world's motorcycle away or make Bezos have to fly first class I know which I am picking.
Interesting how so many people here want to ignore the rich people who got rich off destroying the environment and instead want normal people to pay the price for their greed and destruction.
Perfect is the enemy of good. Trust me, I am very irritated by the complete lack of giving a fuck shown by billionaires and large companies.
But I also know that when it comes down to it the only thing they actually care about is money. And I am one of the people that provides them with that money by choosing to buy their products. Sure, it will take a significant amount of us to make a noticable impact but vegan alternatives have been becoming much more popular and prevalent because there is increasing demand. It's happening. The dairy industry obviously feels threatened with their stupid wood milk campaign and desperate attempts to ban anyone else from using the word milk.
That is something I actually have control over. I can vote accordingly to try to stop rich assholes from destroying the earth, but I don't control it alone. At least when the earth dies I can say I tried.
Perfect being the enemy of good is the exact problem here. There is a much bigger reduction in emissions by reducing meat intake, compared to already eating low amounts and going vegan.
It's easier to convince people to eat less meat. That should be the focus
In a mastodon thread this week we estimated that banning private jet usage globally would save about 100 million tonnes of CO2, while normal Americans would save 4.5 billion tonnes by reducing their consumption to global average levels.
Disproportionate harms are annoying but a tiny minority acting disproportionately still matters way less than how normal people act. Banning private jets is pointless if nothing else changes.
Because something doesn't fix a problem completely nothing can be done, yes?
Also I wonder how many times I have been stuck on the tarmac because of some private jet using my taxpayer funded airport.
Stop passing the blame, this isn't a hot potato game when you pass the blame around and nobody actually does anything. Everyone must do their part
But only one can be immidiatly changed by one self. Except if you have your own plane.
New study shows that the floor is made out of floor
Imma need sources for that claim...
That better be vegan sauce
My God, just reduce your meat intake and stop being a wuss. This thread is insufferable.
Business as usual. Climate crisis is everyone's problem but me ! Everyone must make an effort, but not me !
It's the triangle of inaction. Corporations, government and people blame the two others and use it as an excuse for inaction.
I can understand it in some cases, but meat consumption ? There is no excuse to not stop or at least reduce meat consumption. It's easy to do, it's cheaper, ... And the impact of everyone not buying meat is insanely positive.
Meat is for me one of the easiest source of protein, and people in general consume already less protein than recommended. :( Many vegan option and/ or protein supplements are expensive. Vegetarian options are okay (eggs, for example) but going 100 percent vegan is difficult.
For real, I fucking love meat but I only eat it once a week now and it’s not like I’m fucking dying. And it’s not like what I’m eating now tastes bad or anything - lots of rice and beans (Brazilian style, fucking divine), potatoes and other veggies, sometimes a little tofu. It’s fine.
The world is literally dying and people are whining about hamburgers or whatever. Fucking insane man.
The problem is that, as an overall percentage of annual emissions, agriculture as a whole is only about 11%* of the total, with meat contributing to part of that amount. Similar to individual contributions, while this is an important part of the problem, it's not a big enough part that we should prioritize tackling it compared to other, significantly worse parts.
The bulk of resources should be dedicated to massively lowering energy contributions, which are a whopping 72%* of total emissions, with electricity and heat being ~31% of that amount.
*2013 data, source: https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/#:~:text=Globally%2C%20the%20primary%20sources%20of,72%20percent%20of%20all%20emissions.
Yes, but reducing animal products in diets does not require any investments or resources. On large scales, it even frees up resources.
It's a decision everyone makes three times a day. You can decide against animal products on your plate and still eat a comparably tasty, healthy, affordable meal. No other way to reduce emissions is that easy. Most require upfront investments, construction work, dedication and long term commitment.
It's big enough to make us miss climate targets on its own. We have to both reduce fossil fuels and meat consumption
(emphasis mine)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
Energy companies that have been distracting from their wrongdoing for years: Hey maybe individuals should switch to vegan diets!
Yes let's shift the blame off massive polluting companies, we should eat veggies and let them warm the earth
People aren't going to care enough unless its significantly cheaper than meat and equally as much effort for the consumer but a lot of vegan alternatives to meat aren't. It should be cheaper for all of the same reasons that it's more environmentally friendly. Plus why full vegan? It's more likely that people will move in small steps vegetarianism is still an option. We lose so much with the all or nothing approach.
That's kind of the direction I started going in, veganism for environmental reasons, rather than health or moral/ethical reasons. I've gone about it somewhat slowly, picking different food items to restrict from my diet and looking for non-meat/non-dairy equivalents, mostly just trying to remove any beef or dairy milk from my diet. It seems to have gotten easier in the past few years as other options have opened up.
Yeah thats a problem I have. I like some plant based meat/dairy alternatives but can't justify paying so much. Meat and dairy should be quite a bit more expensive compared to plant based.
A vegan (or low-meat diet, for that matter) does not equate to substituting meat to processed meat alternatives. Other recipes that do without any fake meat exist.
Yeah obviously but vegan meat and dairy substitutes are a good option for many people looking to replace animal products
Life in prison for the entire board of directors for the top 100 largest polluting corporations would do a lot more I bet.
This is exactly what the author of the article is trying to distract you from - corporations who caused the problem in the first place want to place the blame on individuals while companies like Exxon got rich making climate change worse even after they knew it was a problem way back in 1971.
I'm shocked!
We've been saying this for year yet people still refuse
It's just a factor of my quality of life which I'm not willing to compromise on. Surely you also have some of those.
Just completely switching to only eating chicken or a vegetarian diet gets you nearly there. No need to go completely vegan and far easier to do for someone who regularly eats beef.
Eating local meat also solves this problem.
So does eating the rich. I know which one I'd prefer
goes nuclear power does help as long it the nuclear reactor placed anywhere near the area that can earthquake
This type of rhetoric is just relieving big industries of their sole responsibility and enabling them. “It’s not my fault that I’m producing it, it’s your fault that you’re buying it” my ass. I won’t do a single shit unless the people that are actually causing this crisis do something.
In situations where the harm is caused by the industry's approach, I'd agree. But animal products' harm is pretty inextricable, and its production is caused by consumer demand.
But, the harm IS caused by the industry’s approach. People will always demand high caloric and tasty food, there is a way to respond to that ethically and environmentally friendly, and there is shoving thousands of cows in a tiny building, pumping antibiotics and whatever they are doing for the sake of pure profit
There are high caloric tasty vegan foods available, and when they are not it's usually because they aren't in high demand. How is the onus not on the consumer for picking animal products over those?
I'm all for vilifying the Animal Agriculture industry, they do some terrible stuff that goes way beyond the harm intrinsic to factory farms. But how exactly would they meet demand without factory farming, a brutally efficient way of producing animal products?
Governments should cease subsidizing animal products (maybe help their producers transition to other production), subsidize other foods more, and enact many other policy changes besides. But in most places it can be cheap and delicious to be vegan now. I don't see how you get around personal choice being the main driver.
I agree with your point, the issue is much more nuanced then how i took it at the beginning
One father can aupport 5 sons, 5 sons can not support one father.
Demanding that we all making good decisions consistently does not work. If we want change it has to be via the government. We can pass regulations that results in less animal harm and less CO2 output.
In many cases yes, but in this case animal feed simply take up a lot of land and there's no way around it. The only way to free up that land to rehabilitate the environment is it reduce production and that means consuming it less.
Companies wouldn't produce stuff but for people buying it. Naturally people who aren't willing to stop buying the product aren't going to do stuff like support legislature that makes it become a lot more expensive and/or difficult to acquire, or even forbidden entirely.
So it's political suicide for a politician to do something like that: they'll just get voted out. Without regulations forcing companies to adhere to those restrictions, it's basically business suicide to just do something that hamstrings the company's ability to produce whatever product. Their competitors will just eat them.
I'm not saying companies/the rich don't have responsibility, they absolutely do. I really think that change, for the most part, has to start with the population in general though. I definitely strongly disagree with anyone saying that consumers don't have at least equal responsibility.
Yeah exactly - just look at the protests when fuel prices had a (relatively insignificant to what would be needed) rise in recent years
A lot of people seem to think that they are free of any responsibility whatsoever and can continue living as if they are not influenced by climate change...
Ive got a question, would you be cheering if the meat industry took you up on your offer and immediately ceased all production? Or if oil companies stopped providing gasoline? The shipping industry comes to a standstill to avoid exhaust emissions, no more metal mining, natural gas plants are shut down. Does that go well for you?
Of course not? What? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
So I don't know what third option you've got in mind. Either the consumer, you, are responsible for the environmental damage caused by these industries by inducing demand. Or, as you seem to be explicitly saying, the industries themselves are responsible. How the hell do you think they're gonna take responsibility in stopping the damage they're doing to the environment?
There is no option where you get to keep eating meat daily and drive a gas car, and the environment gets to recover. Either you take responsibility in stopping on your own, or the industries themselves no longer provide it to you in the first place.
To be fair, it's corporations, lobbyists and governments that made us believe that we needed these things to be successful. Entire generations morals were bought with new technology that we were convinced we needed. And then the government's created places to revolve and evolve around these technologies and put us all in a position where we'd have to give up everything in order to be able have a chance at a future. Commuters have been put in a position where they need their gas guzzlers, we can't get jobs without consistent access to a mobile phone and internet- some won't even hire you if you aren't on socials.
Sure we can take steps to combat the problem, but the problem is still being shoved down our throats under the guise of success and happiness so most don't even have a clear idea of what the problem is. The industries themselves are responsible, they created this problem and they pay off governments for the ability to continue this problem. We as consumers can have a small impact on this, but without rallying 8 billion people against it, it is useless- the industries only have to convince a handful of people that their way is the right way.
You make it sound as though personal responsibility and discipline will show us the way out of the darkness, but that is disingenuous at best.
God this sounds pathetic. No one made you do shit.
Yeah. It also makes us die sooner, which is also great for the environment. Great success!
Guarantee by every health metric I am beating you by a mile and I am plant-based and proud. Veganism is both healthy and spiritually complete.
Where did you got that one from?
Whoa! calm down mr edgy boy
Ok adolf
Hey Adolf, you know Hitler was vegetarian right? He also suffered from uncontrollable flatulence. Your fav person was a gassy anti-meat little bitch