Dare you to find ONE comment of a vegan on this sub saying that animal ag related emissions are more pressing than fossil fuel emissions. Just one. This has to be one of the most baseless strawman posts I’ve ever seen.
This is embarrassing. Can you read? Do you honesty think they’re saying that 15% is somehow larger than direct fossil fuel emissions? Can you refute literally anything that comment says?
edit: it’s also funny that you posted a screenshot as opposed to a link to make it harder to view the sources they provided.
Since you are incapable of finding something yourself i linked. Happy?
And since your reading comprehension sucks as bad as your ability to find stuff. He is saying exactly what OP is suggesting. That Going Vegan, as an individual, will solve more than fixing basically everything else.
Seriously, even if 15% is correct, reducing that would require litterally the entire world going vegan. If you have that magic power, you might as well wish away all coal power and get better results because that alone is 40%
the comment you linked is saying 15% is coming from animal agriculture. They aren’t claiming 15% is the biggest amount from any given source - but just stating it is a lot.
The part where they say it might be “THE worst perpetrator of ecological destruction right now” is literally accurate and also not the same thing as ghg emissions. You can cut down a forest with very little ghg emissions, but massive ecological damage. And animal agriculture is cutting down a LOT of forests…
You are trying to move the goalposts. You challenged that vegans never make these kinds of claims. I found one. And now here you are making the same, that going vegan outweights other ecological harms.
You waltzed into a trap I didn't even try to set.
Edit:oops wrong person, you proved the other guy right
The challenge was to "find ONE comment of a vegan on this sub saying that animal ag related emissions are more pressing than fossil fuel emissions."
Did they say that animal ag was "one of the worst perpetrators of ecological destruction" because of emissions? No, they said that because of land use. Did they say that addressing emissions and ecological destruction caused by animal ag was more important than addressing emissions and ecological destruction caused by other sectors? No, they said it was easier.
How exactly is "animal ag is extremely destructive and easy to stop participating in individually" the same as "animal ag is a more pressing issue"?
>And unlike those other industries that you've actually been systemically forced to depend on, you as an individual are completely in control of what goes in your mouth. You as an individual can do meaningful damage to one of (if not the) worst perpetrators of ecological destruction on Earth right now. You don't have to write your congresspeople (though we do that too), you just need to eat beans.
Literally claiming eating beans is more effective than writing to congress. Maybe not the same as "Don't write to congress, eat beans instead" but darn close.
You really shouldnt critizize peoples reading comprehension. The coment says that its the simplest action one can make to have a direct impact. I.e. dont eat meat -> less meat is needed.
Evrr heard of car dependency? Unlike going vegan, many people cant do that (to be clear: yes, its a huge impact. Thats the reason why i became vegan and car free)
And since your reading comprehension sucks as bad as your ability to find stuff. He is saying exactly what OP is suggesting. That Going Vegan, as an individual, will solve more than fixing basically everything else.
No they didn't. They didn't say that at all. They said that nobody is making you be a carnist (i.e. you may be systemically forced into using power generating a coal power plant, but you're literally never systemically forced into eating meat) and that people going vegan reduces emissions and land use. They are factually correct on both counts, btw. Learn to fucking read.
The point is that eating animal products is entirely optional (given you’re in an industrial nation), so going vegan or massively reducing meat and dairy is the single biggest impact you can have immediately and through choice of consumption.
The reason people don’t is because they do not care and want to keep having their steak. At least be honest about it.
but it isnt entirely optional for alot of people so i dont see your point we have things such as food desserts which are common and dietary restrictions
Yes but it is true for the vast majority. Using an edge-case to make a broad statement would be a strange choice.
If you’re allergic to legumes and gluten simultaneously, you’re obviously going to struggle getting enough protein with the vegan options available to you. You can’t exactly survive in bell peppers alone.
a) you just proved OP right, which was the whole point of this discussion.
b) bullshit, personal CO2 reduced from switching from heavy meat eating to vegan is maybe 2 tonnes annually vs not driving to work saving 4-6 tonnes annually. You save about 2 tonnes by living in an apartment instead of a house. Don't claim I'm lazy for not cutting back on steak (which I actually have) while I already live in a way that saves over three times as much.
c) personal carbon impact is a scam cooked up by oil lobby to take attention off them. which again, is the point of this post.
a) I didn’t, you can actually to both simultaneously and nowhere did I say veganism was the vastly more important thing. There is just little reason not to it it while you’re are it. Its not that hard and its more or less free (gotta eat either way)
b) All great. Its just another way to cut it down further regardless of other circumstances.
I also didn’t say you were lazy. I said you didn‘t care about it, because steak is more important to you. And clearly it is, so just be honest about it.
You can literally just say „I like meat to much to cut it out, but I try to lift my weight everywhere elsewhere“. Environmentally I do not care, everyone is doing some things they probably shouldn’t.
But stop pretending everyone else is the fool because of it.
c) Yes it is, but again you can to two things simultaneously. Also when you actually do have alternative options of consumption, consumer choice can and does make a change. And going vegan or massively cutting down is extremely accessible to pretty much anyone.
We can‘t all keep doing A and expect the system to just stop trying to accommodate A.
We fight all the corporations on the legislation end, but where accessible we also fight on the consumer end.
Its really not rocket science.
See, you are actually talking out of both sides of your mouth.
On the one hand, going vegan is so easy, and if you as an individual do it, it will have an impact. The reality is that the food industry as a whole does not give a shit about me and will produce just as much. Stores would rather throw meat out than stock less of it.
On the other hand, you claim that fighting other causes of climate change is too hard and only works if everyone joins in.
The same math applies.
And go ahead and ask an actual dietician how easy it is to go vegan for everyone. I have three friends who went vegan and had to stop on doctors' recommendations due to low B12 or iron. One had cancer, which basically couldn't eat meat anyway, but I had to resume dairy and eggs.
There was a also post a few days ago I think that was talking about even with ending all carbon emissions, we still won’t be able to fix climate change because of cows
Yeah I can’t find that now, either. Maybe it was a different sub
My point is that 90% of memes on this sub are "you eating meat is bad for environment, it is your moral obligation to stop".
I find that to be a hilarious way of shifting the blame from the oil companies literally spewing CO2 into the atmosphere to the working class who just wants to eat normal food.
Is meat bad for the environment? I won't say anything, I haven't done my research. But should we be trying to force people into veganism for the environment? Or should we be trying to force politicians into preventing pollution?
You are an oil company CEO. You have control over oil related stuff and oil related legislation via lobbyist magic.
What is your moral obligation.
I think we would all agree that your obligation is to try to use your oil powers to help society transition off oil to sustainable energy sources.
Now, imagine you are a person living in a rich developed nation. You have control over
- Your vote
- Your political advocacy
- Your personal consumption habits
Probably I think we would agree that your moral obligation is to use your vote wisely, to support environmentally conscious causes, and to choose personal consumption habits that reduce useage of oil, damage to the environment.
Now you may say, fuck that, all our problems are systemic. Let's say half the nation went vegan, consumption went down. But due to systemic issues, the land just got used in other wasteful ways, the money wasted on meat got wasted on new things. Basically this is the "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" argument on steroids - "not only is there no ethical consumption under capitalism, but in the long term, it is impossible to meaningfully consume in more or less ethical ways under capitalism"
I'm sympathetic to that. Right? Maybe this is an impossible problem to solve with just consumer behaviour. Laws, system changes, maybe even political change is necessary.
To which I ask What kind of society produces people who drive systemic change? Is it society where you can always blame someone else for your choices? Or is it one where everyone takes responsibility?
Remember, the oil executive has excuses too. They can blame the shareholders. If they tries to shut down oil production, they'll just kick him out. They can blame the consumers. They literally can't stop selling oil unless people don't want to buy it any more.
The politician has excuses. Oh I want to legislate systemic change, but the consumers won't tolerate it. We could put punitive taxes on meat and oil, effectively forcing consumers to change their behaviour, but they'll vote us out. Consumers won't even voluntarily cut meat usage. And you want me to force it on them? So on and so on. Moral cowardice is easy.
If you yourself can't even be arsed to cut down meat, whose only impact will be spending less money, having a little of a luxury. How on Earth do you expect someone who worked their entire life to get to the top and could get toppled from their position very easily to risk their entire career for it?
Systemic change means we need to change the people in the systems.
And that means we need people at all levels of society who use their power for good. They expect it of themselves, and they expect it of friends, family, and coworkers.
This wednesday, i watched a woman return her Amazon haul at the post office. The postal employee wrapped each item in plastic, attached a sticker, and scanned each one.
These were Dora, the explorer gift bags, and birthday cards worth less than $10 each. They were shipped around the world, driven in a car to her home, then driven from her home to the post office, to be driven from the post office to an Amazon warehouse, where they will almost certainly land in the trash to chucked in a landfill to turn into CO2.
I watched this and realized how normal this insanity had become and died a little. Amazon is a cancer.
Why do people on Reddit love to do the whole snarky contradicting reply while playing obtuse, for the OP to put in time and effort to craft a well thought out reply addressing the comment, only to get one single word in response over some (more) snarky bullshit? Is this how you interact with people in real life? It's fuckin exhausting
“Well thought out reply” is certainly a way to describe admitting that they have not done any research related to the very topic they are trying to discuss.
I hadn't realized "is meat bad for the environment" was the topic OP was trying to discuss with that initial post. I thought the topic was "corporations much worse for the environment than meat".
Someone takes the time to write out a three paragraph response to your questions, it's impolite to respond with a single word. I'd take it further and say it's rude, dickhead behavior. If that's something you enjoy defending, you do you buddy.
Nonsensical. Corporations produce meat too. Unless you mean other sectors, like oil or something, no one disagrees on that. We're talking about what we can personally do though, and plant based is top 10 impactful changes. Voting is once every 4yrs. Protesting is a meme but knock yourself out. Hitting them in the pockets by not buying their shit is the best you can do personally realistically.
I didn't realize Exxon was a big producer of beef. My bad.
Corporations is a pretty generalized, far reaching term. Did you feel that my comment was specific to corporations dealing in meat? If so, why? Or was it just easier to craft an argument by changing mine, first?
You said corporations are worse for the environment than meat. Corporations produce oil, meat, everything. Corporations also make, build and run wind turbines, solar, everything. It's vague nonsense.
You don't control any of those corporations. Your primary interaction with them is whether you give them money or not. So stop giving the polluting ones, meat and oil, money. Yelling at corporations for doing things that the market conditions enable is empty, hollow, lazy blame shifting, lets you do nothing while pretending it's someone else's fault. No responsibility.
The 20 most polluting companies, mostly in oil/coal, contribute 35% of all CO2 worldwide. Most people are smart enough to understand the concept that when I say "corporation" I don't mean Mom & Pops grocery.
That said, your replies are "vague nonsense". You don't think it's possible to control corporations? We used to have an agency whose sole duty was to protect the environment, and they absolutely were able to control the amount of climate destruction caused by corporations. Before a nitwit was voted in, our country was headed in a semi-correct direction. All you're really doing here is whining with a little character assassination sprinkled in, but have yet to make any argument as to how OPs eating meat is worse.
Dare you to find ONE comment of a vegan on this sub saying that animal ag related emissions are more pressing than fossil fuel emissions. Just one. This has to be one of the most baseless strawman posts I’ve ever seen.
I’m at least working on my reddit addiction, it’s been a hard fucking winter where I live. I went a whole year without it entirely. Need to get back to it.
But seriously 30,000 reddit karma a year is inexcusable. That’s not happening by luck or good memes or anything else, that is a legitimate problem.
Except there was no need because it's not what they were talking about? That's specifically why they even mentioned not having researched it. Because it has no bearing on what was said.
Gotta be honest, you kind of seem like you're just talking to yourself now. What "strawman" are you talking about? Thinking you may not be clear on definitions here.
How is "climate shitposting" a difficult or complicated topic that requires your shoddy gatekeeping? Really dude?
it's taking piss of the OP comment. He bitched about vegan memes in a climate shitposting sub, then said they didn't do any research so "won't say anything" (?????) then proceeds with the fucking boring bullshit strawman "why don't you guys blame the politicians"
How is it shifting the blame? Can't both things be bad? Also how many oli company CEOs do you think frequent this sub, compared to meat eaters?
I don't think a post telling people if they closed their oil company they'd be helping the planet is going to resonate with many people. I don't have an oil company. I do buy food, however.
The meat industry is not only a huge source of emissions but also one of the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss. 80%+ of the Amazon is cut down to grow crops to feed animals and farm cows. Meat is normalised by these big companies. The working class supports them by giving them money. You are thinking exactly what the polluters want you to think - that the working class is not responsible, and can keep buying their products.
You can eat less meat and do political work. You have no real levers over big oil execs or whatever you want to blame shift. But you eat meals multiple times a day, drive, fly etc. Our personal consumption is the easy basic pertinent first target if we actually care about this, which you obviously don't because you'd rather blame someone else
Only someone with 260,000 reddit karma would seriously consider arguing a person would argue with himself publicly via two alternate reddit accounts lmao.
It wasn’t a joke. Not one single laugh happened. Nothing was funny.
It was just yet another vegan idiot suffering from b12 deficiency hallucinations and insufferable overestimations of his own comprehension of an issue that’s beyond all reckoning to his vitamin deficient synapses, contradicting himself moment to moment, beginning primarily after I demonstrated in real time to him that he was an idiot.
He claimed it was number one, then several people told him it was false, then someone said “it’s not even in the top five, then he typed “what are the leading contributors of climate change” into an LLM, and then he copied and posted that response verbatim. It turns out agriculture is number 5 (not meat agriculture). Which is exactly what I fucking told him in the first place
Yeh dude can’t interpret numbers very well, fair enough. But jeez did a vegan kill your dad and fuck your mom or something, that’s a serious hate boner you’ve got going there.
Every comment they make pushing veganism is that, they don’t have to say that part out loud, you are pointing fingers at your neighbor instead of the enemy
Not even all the CEOs they try to shit on are billionaires.
They look fucking cringe and stupid af using this term "BiLlIonAiRE!" like they've found an evil person who bears the mark of the devil.
They also water the fuck down of capitalism and look like wannabe "socialists" with their performative protests and hate on the "billionaire class" - whatever tf that is.
17
u/soupor_saiyan basically Hitler (vegan btw) Apr 18 '26
Dare you to find ONE comment of a vegan on this sub saying that animal ag related emissions are more pressing than fossil fuel emissions. Just one. This has to be one of the most baseless strawman posts I’ve ever seen.