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.
I’m sure plantbasednews.org is a non-biased, reputable news source.
Makes sense to judge, assume, and dismiss before reading anything! That way you only get the good and correct news! Smrt!
The article links to the study, but go ahead and keep stuffing your fingers in your ears.
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.
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?
This is why it’s a good idea to read the study and not just rely on whatever news outlets tell you.