if the industry continues to grow, the location of the farms doesn’t seem to matter.
if the industry continues to grow, the location of the farms doesn’t seem to matter.
if you buy less meat, the meat industry actually becomes smaller over time.
that has never happened.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
That’s the opposite of what you were accusing corporations of doing.
Edward Bernays
some years later, once corporations had more solid control of legislatures and were no longer afraid of legislation, they started using the carbon footprint idea in reverse as propaganda - they claimed individual responsibility was a myth, only legal action against corporations will help with climate change, so eat whatever you want and buy all the gas you want and buy all the corporate products you want, and don’t feel guilty about it, because it doesn’t matter.
citation needed
it’s better than “threadiverse” which at once includes the name of a Facebook product and seems to also give Facebook all the credit for mastodon, Lemmy, pixelfed, peer tube be etc, while also making them appear to be second class citizens.
but I am not endorsing this “social web” thing yet, either.
a 80% cut has an impact! so does 50%.
i don’t think so. i don’t think it matters what you do in the grocery store or in a restaurant.
You don’t have to be a rabid vegan to make an impact.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
the fact is that the industry continues to grow.
this is warmed-over poore-nemecek 2018. that’s the primary basis for the claims about the climate, but the methodology of that study is fucked, and it’s a disservice to actual climate science to keep touting this meta"study" that misuses its source material and myopically focuses on distilling data instead of understanding the complexity of our agricultural systems. the textile industry’s water use, land use, and emissions, i guarantee, are being counted in poore-nemecek as emissions from beef. i didn’t pull out the data from the separate reference to water use, but i will eat my hat if that doesn’t, as well.
eating less beef has not been effective at stopping the growth of the beef industry for all the people who have done so. we need a real solution, and trying to influence individual consumer choice isn’t working.
edit: down voting doesn’t change the truth
you should check a dictionary. farmers exploit their fields, oil companies exploit wells. don’t take my word for it
and the other people in my inbox certainly don’t think I’m vegan. why do you?
you’ve assumed i agree with your position that eating meat = animal exploitation,
this is a bare fact. like drinking water is often exploited from a well. exploitation is not bad in itself.
The fact is that if you banned animal ag, you would significantly reduce total child labor violations.
how can you prove this?
at least someone trying to reduce one’s dependancy on this shit is doing something
but i AM doing something. i bought a buss pass last month. it’s just as effective!
can you show a causal link between being vegan and a decrease in child labor? my guess is that there is a general trend of increased child labor globally that tracks closely the rise in veganism.
being vegan doesn’t reduce it either
didn’t you already try that? it didn’t work.
the thumbnail looked like a tornado behind a skyscraper.
the house can only make $1 per play, and the bettor can make a functionally unlimited amount.
see the martingale strategy. you are basically sticking the house with a martingale strategy in which you get to decide when they bet.
your local decline can be explained by any number of factors, and there is not enough evidence to conclude it is due to you or your whole town reducing meat consumption.