The response to this CNN tweet is massively misrepresenting the study that this â100 companies are responsible for 71% of greenhouse gasâ comes from. The numbers the twitter user uses are also a little off. To quote from fullfact:
âIn the original press release accompanying the report, CDP said: â100 active fossil fuel producers including ExxonMobil, Shell, BHP Billiton, and Gazprom are linked to 71% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions since 1988.âThis means that the total estimated cumulative greenhouse gas emissions released by human activity (excluding carbon dioxide from land use, land-use change and forestry, and agricultural methane) between 1988 and 2015, 71% of those emissions originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions from producing fossil fuels (like oil, coal, and gas), and the subsequent use of the fossil fuels they sell to other companies. Therefore, it might not come as such a surprise that these 100 entities are linked to 71% of human activity-related greenhouse gas emissions since all 100 are fossil fuel producers.â
Basically, 100 companies produced 71% of the fossil fuels which are then used by other industries and by consumers. 100 companies arenât responsible for 71% of emissions, theyâre producing 71% of fossil fuels. Massive difference. Also worth noting that this study excluded any agricultural emissions, which is massively convenient.Â
This study literally highlights the fact that consumers also share responsibility, but we as consumers cannot divorce ourselves from the consequences of our actions, nor can we ignore the fact that we do have power as consumers.
â And eating less or no meat does nothing if itâs not locally sourced in-season fruits and vegetables. In fact veganism/vegetarianism is more detrimental to the environment because of all the emmissions the trucks use to cart F&V around. âÂ
Putting aside the fact that veganism has nothing to do with the environment, its a social justice movement opposing all forms animal exploitations and avoiding it as far as possible and practicable, and is a moral obligation for anyone who has any level of concern over animal suffering. This claim is incorrect. Transport costs is just a very small part of the overall environmental impact of a food item. It has actually been demonstrated that an average of 83% of a food productâs carbon footprint is caused during production, and transportation accounts for only 11%. This means that choosing plant based food over the flesh and/or secretions of brutally exploited, abused and slaughtered animals has a far lower environmental impact than buying animal flesh, milk, eggs etc. form even the most local of farms. And this is true even when the plant based options are shipped from abroad.
 Also lets keep in mind that when it comes to animal flesh and secretions, the vast majority of transport emissions comes from transporting livestock feed, mostly from abroad, transporting antibiotics, and transporting the animals to a slaughterhouse to have their throats slit and then transporting their refrigerated body parts and secretions to suppliers and to you. How local the farm is to you has very little to do with transport emissions.Â
In short, buying the flesh, milk or eggs of animals from any locality, even a farm in your own town when its at all avoidable is both unjustifiable from an ethical standpoint, but its also worse for the environment than buying plant based proteins from abroad.
This is a big reason why consuming a plant based diet is still the âsingle biggest wayâ to reduce your impact on the environment.Â
âNot to mention the death of fauna like field miceâ
Farming, exploiting, and slaughtering animals to sell their flesh and secretions for human consumption involves far more crop deaths than any level of plant agriculture on top of the direct slaughter of farmed animals. So if you are at all concerned with crop deaths and the fate of field mice, then you would then have to oppose animal agriculture which results in far higher numbers of these deaths. Never mind the direct slaughter of farmed animals.Â
Animal Agriculture: Many many many times more animal deaths, both indirectly via crop farming, and directly via animals being needlessly and brutally shot in the head, bludgeoned to death, or strung upside-down to have their throats slit open and blood drained out.Â
A great article here which goes into more details on this.Â
âand the whole slave tradeâ
Vegans eat the very same foods that non vegans eat, just without the flesh and secretions of brutally exploited and slaughtered animals. So if a plant based diet is supporting the slave trade, then so are not vegans diets. Just with that added exploitation, torture and slaughter of non human animals, as well as the slave labor and exploitation of workers within the animal ag industry on top of that. And then thereâs the fact that a non vegans diet requires significantly more crops than ours does, so it requires even more labor, which means even more worker exploitation/slave labor.Â
So by any metric a vegans diet is many times less harmful, to both non human animals and humans within both the animal ag and plant based ag industries.
jbbartram-illu
stormborns
janainaart
gummygunk
discoholicmusic
tangentwithtanner
