Eating the rich is by far the most eco-friendly approach as it can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In this thread: Shit loads of people who will say they care about the climate crisis on one day, then say they don’t care about the 18.5% of global carbon emissions that the meat industry causes the next day because they can’t get over the decade worth of anti-veganism jokes and memes that they’ve constantly repeated uncritically.
Individual habits MUST be changed to solve this part of the problem, there is literally no way around that. Getting triggered and writing screeds because you’ve spent decades getting caught up in hate over food choices won’t stop the planet burning.
It’s insane how hard the cognitive dissonance hits. Everyone is trying to find excuses to justify their choices
I used to be a smoker several decades ago and didn’t defend smoking as hard as people defend meat.
Some people have made eating meat and making fun of vegans their entire personality. They buy things and spend time posting on social media about it. It is basically their hobby. Really sad, honestly.
I think part of it is that, similar to console wars there’s like a consumer choice loyalty thing. But on top of that there’s also a resistance generated by the moral part. And that’s all in addition to the usual resistances to change.
Nope, gotta blame “the cooperations” because God forbid you admit cooperations only pollute because of your own demand.
Animal agriculture is a particularly good example here because literally nothing will ever make meat sustainable (except growing it in a lab).
Growing it in a lab is likely worse that growing it in an animal. Synthetic imitations are the only efficient replacement.
It is genetically the same thing? Have you ever read something on cultured meat before you made this statement?
How you gonna change the world if you can’t even change what you have for breakfast?
No amount of individual choices can save the planet. The climate change causes by corporations is sufficiently world ending. So even if literally every single person on the planet went vegan it wouldn’t be enough. The idea of a personal carbon footprint was created by BP in order to make people put the blame on themselves. The only way to stop it is mass industrial action. Personal choice, at least at this point, is completely irrelevant.
The only way to do this is to not buy products that are incredibly harmful to the climate and voting for politicians that want to sharpen climate policy. Industries won’t regulate themselves. Acting like the consumer/voter can’t do shit is just straight up lying and results in inaction.
I never said anything about not voting for industrial action. But if you look at it logically, if there’s no industrial action with or without consumer choices the world burns, but if there is industrial action then with or without consumer choices (partly because the industrial action would alter what choices are available) the world has a chance to survive. So in our current situation devoting energy and thought to consumer choices is not just pointless if you would otherwise be working towards industrial action in any capacity it is actively detrimental (hence why BP created it as a concept)
Again who is going to work towards industrial action? Not the industries… That’s not how capitalism works. Do you really think that asking them to be more climate friendly will work?
Industries listen to two things: money and policy. And I’m not even so sure about the latter. Vote at the ballot and vote with your wallet.
If you don’t want to change, the CEO of BP won’t either because he’s still getting those tasty dollars out of your pockets at the pump and through government aid.
How do you think regulations work?? The poster is correct, no amount of individual action will save us. We need to collectively fight for regulations that force - not ask - businesses to change. “That’s now how capitalism works” — what does that even mean??
deleted by creator
Yeah but we need to dial everything back, because we can’t dial all industries back. Every single gain that we can make is worthwhile and this one is easy for almost everyone except those with understandable dietary problems like IBS sufferers and crohns. It’s an area that we could completely eradicate our carbon output in, not just that but certain crops can actually be carbon positive so increasing what we need of them through replacement in diet is actually beneficial.
If you don’t make the change there won’t be any texture or taste soon because climate change is going to make the food supply collapse. If your country doesn’t have a revolution in the chaos the government will go into rationing and you will have no choice. If the revolution succeeds the new government will do the same. And if that does not happen the country will just be in persistent civil war as people starve and die. These are the incoming realities of climate change. They are unavoidable if action is not taken literally yesterday.
deleted by creator
Jesus christ mate I’m not the person saying it, the climate scientists are. The main warning happening now is that everything is happening faster than predicted and that we’re likely to hit tipping points in 2-5 years that cause cascading failures destroying global food supplies.
Open your eyes ffs
Removed by mod
Climate change deniers can eat my ass. The predictions have been true, what’s worse is that they’re happening a decade faster than predicted.
deleted by creator
This mindset is going to get us all killed. I don’t think you’re quite aware of how serious it is. Climate scientists are now saying that things are happening faster than we ever predicted, they are warning that tipping points will be hit in the next 2-5 years. The time for change is now or literally never.
and aren’t just using the climate as an excuse to push veganism
I am not even a vegan. I can see how right this is though. I did smoke in the past though and I know how hard that was to give up, I also know what a load of bollocks excuses I made up to justify continuing it.
deleted by creator
I agree. I personally think we need the intervention to look similar to the way we changed smoking habits. There needs to be a multi-pronged approach that includes massive propaganda about the dangers of climate change, made visible in imagery on the meats, alongside massive tax increases on meat products and banning advertising of them. Banning branding and forcing generic branding would be useful too, that worked extremely well across europe for smoking. Spoiler warning for shock imagery:
spoiler
Meat free products are a big part of it. But growing that industry has to come alongside ending the old one, it won’t grow to fill the gap without also making it competitively viable. If governments got behind ending meat in this way you’d see massive investments going into the alternatives as it would be obvious to the financial class that it will be a growth market.
What other solutions would you propose to the problem of meat production contributing 18.5%?
On the other hand, we could always just wait for the rich to tighten meat production and put us all on nutri-loaf.
Ahh yes we can just wait for the rich to willingly reduce their profits. I’m sure that will come before the heat death of the planet.
Don’t worry, such a change would be accompanied by significant increases in the price of nutri-loaf.
The natural market forces at work.
Getting triggered and writing screeds because you’ve spent decades getting caught up in hate over food choices won’t stop the planet burning.
Likewise, I’m sure.
It’s not enough on its own, sure, but not taking any action will basically guarantee we miss climate targets. We have to reduce fossil fuels and reduce meat consumption
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
(emphasis mine)
Just think about it mate. Changing foods is better than watching the oceans acidify and all life around us die, mass crop failure, worldwide famines and societal collapse, fighting everyone for whatever exists. 6billion people will become 1billion and you’ll be taking your chances on being one of the few that doesn’t starve.
The future we’re heading towards right now is not going to be fun. It’s time to adapt rapidly to what needs to be done, or die.
Oh I agree. I was simply pointing out that the statement I highlighted can totally be applied by either side of the debate, verbatim.
It actually made me chuckle, since if it were the only thing in your comment, I wouldn’t have known what your position was.
All that being said, I agree it’s adapt rabidly or die. The real tragedy here in the short term, is it’s going to be the worlds most vulnerable populations to die first.
The real tragedy here in the short term, is it’s going to be the worlds most vulnerable populations to die first.
I think it will surprise people when it happens. Nobody will be safe. When global food supply collapses it won’t just be the poor countries that go into crisis. I’m fairly sure that it will simultaneously happen to almost everyone. The countries least likely to be harmed are the ones with large rice crops.
A couple of people have spoken to me before about wanting to cut back on, or completely cut meat from their diets, but didn’t know where to start. If anyone reading this feels the same way, here’s some fairly basic recipies that I usually recommend (Bosh’s tofu curry is straight up one of the best currys i’ve ever had - even my non-vegan family members love it)
Written:
- ‘Butter’ Tofu Curry (Written Recipe)
- Lentil Soup (Written Recipe)
- Caribbean Stew (Written Recipe)
- Sweet Potato & Cauliflower Curry Pies (Written Recipe)
- Afghan Kidney Bean Curry (Written Recipe)
Videos:
- 5 Minute Vegan Pasta Sauces (YT / Invidious)
- Ultimate Vegan Chilli (YT / Invidious)
- Enchiladas Verdes (YT / Invidious)
- Ultimate Plant-Based Fried Chicken (YT / Invidious)
- Mac & Cheez (YT / Invidious)
- Wicked Lasagna (YT / Invidious)
- Smash Tacos (YT / Invidious)
Tofu is also super versatile and is pretty climate-friendly. there’s a bazillion different ways to do tofu, but simply seasoning and pan frying some extra/super firm tofu (like you do with chicken) with some peppers and onions, for fajitas, is an easy way to introduce yourself. Here’s a little guide for tofu newbies: A Guide to Cooking Tofu for Beginners - The Kitchn. If you wanna level up your tofu game with some marinades here’s six.
Lentils and beans are also super planet friendly, super cheap, and super versatile! You’ll be able to find recipies all over that are based around lentils and beans so feel free to do a quick internet search.
Sorry for the huge, intimidating wall of text! I do hope someone interested in cutting back on meat found this useful though :)
This crucially important caveat they snuck in there:
“Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment.”
…which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity vs the type of plant-based diet people had.
Takeaway from the article shouldn’t be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right and that it’s also possible for vegan diets to be more environmentally irresponsible.
That’s both absolutely true and a massive distraction from the point. An environmentally friendly diet that includes meat is going to involve sustainable hunting not factory farming. In comparison an environmentally friendly vegan diet is staples of meat replacements and not trying to get fancy with it. It’s shit like beans instead of meat, tofu and tempeh when you feel fancy. It means rejecting substitutes that are too environmentally costly such as agave nectar as a sweetener (you should probably use beet or cane based sweetener instead).
So in short eat vegan like a poor vegan not like a rich person who thinks veganism is trendy
deleted by creator
“So in short eat vegan like a poor vegan not like a rich person who thinks veganism is trendy”
But in the context of this conversation, wouldn’t eating like a poor vegan rely heavily on buying products that also have a heavy impact on the environment?
You would have to buy cheaper products which come from mass produced farms that use TONS and TONS of water! And generate TONS and TONS of carbon emissions during production of those products.
To be vegan AND
advocate for conservation(you can advocate for something no matter your own behavior. That’s the wrong word to use) to claim that your lifestyle is better for the environment than your non-vegan counterparts, you have to have money.I ain’t never heard of a gram of black beans with more co2 emissions than a gram of beef
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
[…]
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
deleted by creator
The real takeaway should be that the Independent is complete garbage
Yes, I think it’s vital to avoid thinking in absolutes over carbon footprints if we are to make real progress. We can argue endlessly over the “necessity” of consuming meat, but that becomes a distraction. Many things are not “necessary”, but most people are not realistically going to live in caves wearing carbon neutral hair shirts.
We need to continue increasing transparency on the impact of different animal products, so consumers can make informed choices. While also accepting they may not always be perfect.
The only way to stop people from eating meat is to make a vegan food that tastes better than a bacon cheeseburger.
yes. when you look at charts and such. Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan. Sheep did not show up so well either so im guessing ruminants in general are not going to be so hot. Anyway I would encourage folk to keep it in mind and do what they can. I realize go vegan results in many. Well eff it all then but man just avoiding beef is big impact.
Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan.
But that first person could have an even bigger environmental impact by becoming Vegan instead of only eating chicken.
Or an even bigger impact by having fewer children.
This is true, however, not realistic in some parts of the world. For instance, in the United States, Republicans have waged a war on bodily autonomy, which includes the Roe v. Wade ruling and states creating departments to hunt down citizens who go out of state to have abortions. There are also countries where sex education is not prohibited. So, take these things into consideration while thinking about potential solutions. That being said, you are right, and you can do something about it by voting, if you are able to, wherever you live.
You’d have a bigger impact by convincing 30% of the population to only have chicken, vs convincing 15% to go vegan.
Sure, and if we could only do one, we should choose accordingly. We can do both, simultanously. Exactly like how we don’t have to choose between eating less meat and driving less cars.
yes but if you actually convince someone who eats just chicken to go vegan it will have less of an effect if you actually convince a big red meat eater to limit to chicken.
Watch as I solve this trolley problem with the Ole dual track drifting solution. They should all go vegan. You should, too.
Do you remember a source for that info? Or at least suggestions? I’m interested to read into it, but I’m not really sure what to even google for that
Our World in Data has a decent article about it: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
Yeah I barely eat beef anymore, mostly chicken. I don’t want to give up on eating animals, especially since I’m trying to get into shape right now and it would be hard to eat healthy and get enough protein to build up muscle mass.
Do whatever you want but just so you know Arnold Schwarzenegger is a vegetarian now. It’s much less difficult than people think to get enough protein to bulk up without meat unless you’re doing hardcore body building. Beans and rice is a high protein dinner. Peanut butter is amazing for bulking.
80% vegan. He still eats fish, eggs and chicken. https://www.insider.com/how-arnold-schwarzenegger-gets-protein-on-mostly-vegan-diet-2023-6
80% plant-based diet. Veganism is an ethical stance, not a trendy diet.
I was just talking about this idea with a friend. We decided it would be political suicide in the US for anyone to suggest eating less meat.
People would literally rather see the world burn than give up their chicken nuggets.
I’m not even hardcore vegetarian. I looked at the situation and agreed it’s hard to ethically justify eating meat. So I started eating less. I’m down to pretty much just “sometimes I get a pizza slice with a meat topping if there’s nothing good without meat”. Maybe I’ll cut that out too one day.
If you could tell the average American, with 100% certainty and undeniable proof that going vegan for a month would save the lives of 1,000 children, they would go out, buy as much meat as possible and eat it smugly in front of you and ask you repeatedly if it’s triggering you.
Tax meat, subsidize healthy meat alternatives.
Since it isn’t mentioned in the article, here is the reference: paper (2014)
In the study it even shows how driving a 10 years car for 6000 miles is rougly two years of saved emission with a meat->vegan switch.
I don’t know, changing dietary is obviously good for the health, but these results seems to make pretty useless changes, use the bike and save twice as much.
EDIT: There is a new paper (2023), it is in a reply.
You can do both
The first line in the article says a “new study.” So are you sure it’s not this paper? Also, have to say the paper title is kind of a duh moment.
Thanks I didn’t find the new one!
I don’t drive so maybe I just don’t have context but 6,000 miles seems like A LOT.
On a quick search, it seems that ~10000 is the average miles per year.
From the way you worded it, it sounds like not eating meat is five times as effective than not driving in the same time period.
Though we can always do both to any degree we can.
Sorry for the botchered English, it’s not my first language, as you may have guessed.
I calculated at one point that if you ride a bike instead of a car but replenish the calories with pure beef, it is better to ride the car. So diet matters.
deleted by creator
A 2023 news article about a study published in 2014.
Thanks for the correction. The author of this paper matches up with the one mentioned in the article.
However so does the other article, and it doesn’t look like the recent article really presents anything new.
Nah Corporations and industries creates 1000x more greenhouse gases than meat and agriculture.
Exactly. While certain dietary habits will most certainly have to shift if we’re to adequately tackle climate change, the framing of this as “everyone should just go vegan” falsely puts the onus on individual consumers to solve what is ultimately a systemic problem of production.
It’s time for this unfortunate headline to go away. I see a variation of this posted in nearly every thread about climate and emissions, a complex topic that the average person understandably doesn’t know much about beyond some headline that stuck with them. Snopes has a good article debunking The Guardian’s grossly misleading headline.
To see the actual sources of GHG emissions, at least in the US, the EPA has good resources. In short, agriculture is 10% (methane from cows fits here), transportation is 28%, electric power generation is 25% (fossil fuel power plants generating electricity), residential and commercial buildings are 13% (in practice, the building sector overall is about a third of emissions after attributing the emissions from the electric power slice. Residential and commercial buildings use 75% of the power generated in the US), and finally industry is 23% (again, a bit more factoring in their share of the electric power emissions. Industry uses about a quarter of all power in the US).
As you can see, emissions, or at least GHG emissions, are spread across the economy. Some industries are heavy polluters (e.g. cement manufacturing), but that’s ultimately to make products for the market, even if they do have plenty of room to improve efficiency and reduce emissions, as do all other areas of the economy, especially buildings.
Meat and agriculture are part of the greenhouse gasses that corporations emit…
And who supports these corporations and industries by buying their shit?
“Companies have customers and therefore they have no responsibility to climate change whatsoever. They don’t have to manage their waste, they can dump recyclables into the landfill, and it’s the customers fault!”
Fuck off with this shit.
So you think there is some perfect way to manage waste? Because if you can understand that’s not the case, then you can understand that the more people like YOU support these companies, the more waste there will be. This really is not complicated. I know the average person is adamant about not taking any responsibility and shifting it onto politicians and corporations, but that’s the kind of retarded thinking that got us to 8 billion redundant people.
The maximum number of people who care enough about this to change their lifestyle is the number of people who are doing it right now. How do you increase that number? I can’t even convince my family to cut down on meat. My wealthy friends don’t give a shit. My right wing friends care even less.
People do not like change. Least favourite part of my job is trying to convince something they need to change their habits.
Companies can be regulated and fined. The government is supposed to represent the people, I’d rather them penalize companies than me.
one time i was sad that i buyed a product from nestle, i still ate it because i notiden only after opening but still. I did not like it ;.;
If you choose to drive a car and burn 10 litres of fuel, the responsibility is on you, not the oil company that produced it for you
People can’t think critically over why they prefer meat over vegetables. They just think they do it because hurr durr meat tastes better or you need protines.
If they actually think about the fact that they have been eating meat for every meal since they were a child they might understand that it is just a habit they have formed.
I strongly suggest to those people to try to have 1 dinner a week without meat or fish. It has nothing todo about taste and all about habits and what you are used to.
Try to challenge yourself a little bit and you might get a better perspective over these things.
Saying someone is “hurr durr meat tastes better” is wrong is so dismissive of other people and completely insufferable.
I agree, people should eat less meat. We often have meals in my house that don’t feature meat. But guess what, I think meat tastes better.
The best way to alienate people and turn them against your point of view is to be an insufferable twat.
deleted by creator
Most people I know have meat or fish to every dinner.
Yes meat is tasty, but so is a lot of vegiterian dishes``
Haven’t we known this for a long time? With good peer reviewed studies?
Every time I read about meat and greenhouse gases I feel the need to explain the natural carbon circle. A cow does not produce carbon. It takes carbon from plants and releases it to the atmosphere. Then plants retake that carbon.
Humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere by digging out stored carbon from the ground and bring it to the atmosphere.
So we have to fix the part where we bring additional carbon to the atmosphere. But yes, there are other environmental issues with cattle if you read the op’s article.
The Biogenic Carbon Cycle and Cattle: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle
I feel the need to explain the natural carbon circle.
You know that the problem with ruminants is that they produce methane and not CO2 which is 25 times worse? A cow takes carbon from the ground and the bacteria creates a 25 times more potent GHG. But you are right that creating new fields and tiling the soil is a huge factor.
I feel that anyone who advocates to stop eating meat for methane reasons is a vegetarian in disguise who latched onto global climate change to push their own agenda, having failed to dissuade meat eaters on animal rights grounds. They are doing the fight against climate change a disservice by muddying the waters. If they were serious about methane specifically (which anyone concerned about GHG should be, to within (x*25)% of its contribution), they would be dedicating 10 times more of their time in researching some kind of pill to give the cows to stop them from making methane - a much more feasible outcome. But doing so does not synergize with their animal welfare goals.
I feel that anyone who advocates to stop eating meat for methane reasons is a vegetarian in disguise who latched onto global climate change to push their own agenda
funny, I feel that anyone who complains about being told eating beef is bad for the environment is just two kids in a raincoat. Good luck proving me wrong!
The other thing is that cattle needs much more space. From all the fields that we could use to grow food, a large part ends up as cattle fodder.
That’s about efficient use of land space, not related to GHG specifically other than tangentially regarding deforestation. Also elsewhere in this thread cattle was accused of being inefficient precisely because they sit in warehouses and eat cereals instead of grass. If cattle can roam pastures and eat grass, that’s an equivalent amount of cereals that did not need to be grown, farm machinery that did not need to run (on fossil fuels) to grow them, and a good amount of land possibly too hilly and rugged for any use otherwise put to productive human use through grazing.
Too bad that’s not how it works. Because beef is profitable, ranchers have all the incentive slashing and burning rainforest to make more money.
You subsidize this process every time you spend money on beef.
Removed by mod
A cow also produces a lot of methane, a much worse greenhouse gas.
Besides, the problem isn’t the grass from cows grazing, it’s the rainforests that go down all around the world to convert to farmland to produce animal feed.
It’s much more efficient to use that farmland to feed humans than to feed cows and then feed humans (1kg of meat needs 25kg of feed)
Disclaimer - I’m not vegan but I try to reduce my meat consumption overall, especially red meats.
Methane is broken down within 10 years which is pretty short. Yes, the other environmental issues are real. BTW, I am eating less and less meat. I just see a lot of false assumptions regarding carbon in the atmosphere.
deleted by creator
Very true, but vegans are still gonna shit on you for cutting out less that 100% of animal products from your life. Idk how they can be so desperate to be superior to others that they would actively discourage improving your lifestyle just because it could be even better
Vegans don’t eat animals for the sake of the animals, because they believe killing them unnecessarily is morally wrong.
Saying you’re only going to eat animals once a day is like saying you’re going to halve the amount of violent crimes you commit and expecting praise for it.
It depends on wether you’re actually concerned about the animals, or about yourself.
If you’re concerned about the animals, 100 people reducing by 10% is exactly as good as 10 people reducing by 100%. The difference is, 10 people don’t have to feel guilty. But no animal benefits from that.
Those 100 people would still be eating 90% as many animals as they were before. People don’t need to eat animals to live, so expecting praise for eating 10% less is pretty funny.
It’d be like a criminal deciding to decrease the amount of crimes he commits by 10% and expecting people to encourage and praise him.
I’m killing half as many creatures for my transient pleasure as I was last year.
Oh, why not just stop murdering entirely?
HOW DARE YOU TRY TO SHOVE YOUR BELIEFS DOWN MY THROAT
I’m killing half as many creatures for my transient pleasure as I was last year.
Oh, why not just stop murdering entirely?
Sorry, it does not work that way. Each way of doing agriculture kills creatures. There are insects, rodents, snails and birds harmed in any landscaping operation, wether the end product is meat or plant.
All you can do by changing your diet from meat to plant is a gradual change. You kill less and do less harm, which is great. But you still kill and do harm, that’s just how these things are.
Maybe a kill-free diet is possible with food synthesized in sterile labs, but the resources for that also have to come from somewhere.
With a vegan diet, less plants need to be harvested, so less insects, rodents, snails, birds would die.
I know, and that’s a great reason for a plant based diet.
But read again to what I replied:
I’m killing half as many creatures for my transient pleasure as I was last year.
Oh, why not just stop murdering entirely?
There seems to exist the delusion of kill-free agriculture, when the best we can achieve is to kill less.
We know that we have a Impact on others but shouldn’t the goal be to keep it a minimum?
Animal industry is the intentional killing and abusing of animals. Animal feed is the biggest part of crops grown, for those crops all kind of animals are killed on a big scale. Veganism is about reducing the impact, stopping the intentional killing and reducing the unavoidable impact as much as possible. There is no delusion of a “zero impact vegan” it is just a construct for people who want to justify not changing them self.
We know that we have a Impact on others but shouldn’t the goal be to keep it a minimum?
Yes, completely agreed.
There is no delusion of a “zero impact vegan”
Maybe I misunderstood the person I was initially responding to, but I understood them as exactly that, when they said what I already quoted two times.
It’s also not the first time I encountered this attitude. Maybe they don’t actually believe what they say, but then my critique is directed at the wording. There is no zero kill diet (although plant based diets are clearly much less harmful than other diets).
Occasionally, some vegans bring up this idea and react very sensitive when confronted with how it’s false. Maybe that defensiveness is fueled by cognitive dissonance which we mostly know from the other side.
But also, give cutting it out totally a try, it’s probably not as hard as you imagine
I’m enough of a cu*t as it is. If I went vegan, people wouldn’t stand me, I just think I’d lose the friends I have left.
I upvoted because this message still didn’t reach everyone, but I guess it’s just that people are in denial… like, isn’t this obvious? And weren’t there already dozens of studies proving it?
It amazes me how people can wail about the record breaking heat on one hand and the effects of climate change, and sit in these comments and rationalize that eating meat isn’t contributing. Of course it is.
Going vegan was the best decision I ever made for myself.
