4 ms·
Placing the onus for all these problems squarely on the consumer is misguided and ineffective. Even if a large percentage of the population gave up meat, it wou
by slothtrop 6y ago
Placing the onus for all these problems squarely on the consumer is misguided and ineffective. Even if a large percentage of the population gave up meat, it would not be nearly sufficient to curb C02 emissions and prevent further climate change. Such that, both innovation and policy changes targeting the private sector are needed.
Reducing methane from cattle is important, finger wagging at consumers is a red herring that will deepen partisan divides.
- saagarjha 6y agoThere's nothing partisan in choosing to eat meat, unless you choose to make a partisan issue. As it stands, livestock are a significant contributor towards global CO₂ emissions, and going in with the mindset that "this isn't useful unless innovation and policy changes come about" is the same as saying that it's not worth worrying about a car purchase because you have loans already that are difficult to pay off.
- slothtrop 6y ago> As it stands, livestock are a significant contributor towards global CO₂ emissions Correct. > going in with the mindset that "this isn't useful unless innovation and policy changes come about" Curbing methane emissions by including seaweed in the feed is useful and proactive. Blaming consumers is not.