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.
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?