Huh? We need to both (a) reduce emissions from transport, and (b) reduce emissions from agriculture. The parent poster was implying (presumably, because my or

Huh? We need to both (a) reduce emissions from transport, and (b) reduce emissions from agriculture. The parent poster was implying (presumably, because my original post was saying “we should do both” in response to a post that said “(a) is irrelevant, only (b) matters”) that anyone not doing (b) was killing the planet, and I’m pointing out here that if that’s true, anyone not doing (a) is also killing the planet. We need both! It’s not optional! Half these conversations are “ok sure but X is really all that matters!” — and that is completely false. We need to reduce or eliminate emissions from all sources, full stop.