To only look at only emissions by weight is a trap many fall into and vastly underestimates the impact animal agriculture has on 'climate change' when accountin

To only look at only emissions by weight is a trap many fall into and vastly underestimates the impact animal agriculture has on 'climate change' when accounting for all factors. It drives around 75% of rain forest degredation [0], is the single biggest driver of habitat loss [1] and accounts for approximately 55% of land erosion [2], which all have massive escalatory effects on global warming. Animal agriculture specifically represents 44 percent of anthropogenic methane emissions, the primary driver of climate change related to livestock, as methane is 34 times more potent than carbon dioxide over 100 years[3]; comprises 44 percent of all anthropogenic nitrous oxide emissions, the most potent GHG[3]; and makes up 75-80 percent of total agricultural emissions.[4] Looking at emissions by metric tonnes is not just ignorant - it sets the completely wrong precedent of how we should view animal agriculture. Animal agriculture in its current state is dangerous, and should be treated with as much disdain as fossils fuels are. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971... [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/habitat-loss https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci... [2]http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm (See page 29) [3]http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e03.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e03.pdf [4]http://www.fao.org/climatechange/36143-0fa4483057747f41c08183b702ec5954e.pdf http://www.fao.org/climatechange/36143-0fa4483057747f41c0818...