Yeah none of the studies linked put animal ag over 17% of global emissions, while it provides the majority of protein to the global populace. Sanctioning the biggest polluters (e.g. big oil, chemical companies, etc) would be a far more effective means of reducing global pollution. That's not to say we can't reduce our consumption of animal protein - we absolutely should, IMO - but calling 17% tops the leading cause is a spurious argument.
5 Comments
CarbonBasedNPU@lemm.ee · 0 pts · 1y
the_elder@midwest.social · -2 pts · 1y
I'm sure plantbasednews.org is a non-biased, reputable news source.
november@lemmy.vg · 8 pts · 1y
The article links to the study, but go ahead and keep stuffing your fingers in your ears.
the_elder@midwest.social · -3 pts · 1y
Yeah none of the studies linked put animal ag over 17% of global emissions, while it provides the majority of protein to the global populace. Sanctioning the biggest polluters (e.g. big oil, chemical companies, etc) would be a far more effective means of reducing global pollution. That's not to say we can't reduce our consumption of animal protein - we absolutely should, IMO - but calling 17% tops the leading cause is a spurious argument.
houseofleft@slrpnk.net · 9 pts · 1y
I'm not sure I follow, 17% sounds like a large amount and easily could be called "the leading cause" if the next highest industry is less that 17%?
Are you thinking along the lines that 50%+ is needed before describing something as leading?
bushparty@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 1y
Makes sense to judge, assume, and dismiss before reading anything! That way you only get the good and correct news! Smrt!