Isn't it better to improve at least a little? It is better to save some emissions, and it is better to kill fewer animals. I still find the vegetarian chism of

Isn't it better to improve at least a little? It is better to save some emissions, and it is better to kill fewer animals. I still find the vegetarian chism of the past incredible - how can there be a conflict about advocating for less meat consumption by everyone vs trying to convert them all the way to vegetarianism? If you get 50% of the population to eat half of what they had before, it beats converting the 2% you can optimistically get in the short-to-medium term vastly, so just do both. It's the Copenhagen interpretation of Ethics again - if you interact with a problem in any way, eg by improving it a little, it is now your fault and responsibility to the end. Meanwhile, if you had no interaction, you are morally free not to do anything.