4 ms·

Burning down forests counts for sweet fuck-all because forest fires aren’t emitting millennia-old sequestered carbon. The only important impact on global warmi

Burning down forests counts for sweet fuck-all because forest fires aren’t emitting millennia-old sequestered carbon. The only important impact on global warming from animal husbandry is methane emission, and while agricultural emissions may have been underestimated, so have resource extraction emissions. Going vegan is not going to save us, and thinking that “we need to transition to a global plant-based economy first” is ab-so-lute bullshit undoubtedly funded by the fucking fossil fuel propagandists.

myshpa 4y ago
I understand your argument. Thank you. > Going vegan is not going to save us, and thinking that “we need to transition to a global plant-based economy first” i But nobody's talking about going vegan first. Not me, not the referenced article. The point is we need to do not one, not two, but many things to reverse the trend. Solving fossil fuels alone is not enough, going vegan alone (first) is not enough ... the system needs many adjustements to achieve the balance [0]. The animal agriculture problem is on the table and because of it's scale it's something that should not be ignored. The current (political) trend is to talk about the fossil fuels and only fossil fuels. Changing our (western) diets can be uncomfortable, maybe scary, but something that should be done (please read the climatehealer's paper). [0] https://drawdown.org/solutions https://drawdown.org/solutions - although drawdown project underestimates animal agriculture's impact, it has some good ideas how many things need to change to move forward and shows the scale of the problem
- moistly 4y ago
  The article says, and you quoted it, “We show that we need to transition to a global plant-based economy *first*”. The article is daft propaganda. Yes, we need to eat a mainly vegetable diet, no animal husbandry is not the supermajority driver of climate change.

myshpa 4y ago

I understand your argument. Thank you. > Going vegan is not going to save us, and thinking that “we need to transition to a global plant-based economy first” i But nobody's talking about going vegan first. Not me, not the referenced article. The point is we need to do not one, not two, but many things to reverse the trend. Solving fossil fuels alone is not enough, going vegan alone (first) is not enough ... the system needs many adjustements to achieve the balance [0]. The animal agriculture problem is on the table and because of it's scale it's something that should not be ignored. The current (political) trend is to talk about the fossil fuels and only fossil fuels. Changing our (western) diets can be uncomfortable, maybe scary, but something that should be done (please read the climatehealer's paper). [0] https://drawdown.org/solutions https://drawdown.org/solutions - although drawdown project underestimates animal agriculture's impact, it has some good ideas how many things need to change to move forward and shows the scale of the problem

moistly 4y ago
The article says, and you quoted it, “We show that we need to transition to a global plant-based economy *first*”. The article is daft propaganda. Yes, we need to eat a mainly vegetable diet, no animal husbandry is not the supermajority driver of climate change.