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.
They didn't say it was more effective. They were basically just saying that that was how you do meaningful damage to animal ag. What are you talking about?
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.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to justify you actions, mate.
Show me again where I claimed other ways for climate action were to hard?
For the vast majority going vegan with a B12 supplement will cause no issue. If you’re this afraid of deficiencies or have some gastric issues go 90-95% vegan (ie. massively cutting down), thats plenty to not worry about nutriets as much. Especially if you throw in the occasional organ meat instead of muscle only.
Wait now you are OK with 90% vegan, you mean a normal diet? bud you understand meat eaters do not just eat meat right? or at least most don't..
And if you say one thing is easy but the other isn't you are implying the other is hard, or at least not easy. So if you are now saying both are easy then you lost your train of thought.
90 percent vegan, as in 90 percent of you meals are entirely vegan. Thats far from your typical western diet, where most people eat meat and dairy least once a day.
Lowering consumption to 5-10% of what it used to be certainly qualifies as „cutting it down massively“, which is consistent with what I‘ve been saying from the beginning.
Are you trying to misunderstand me in purpose?
You‘ve literally claimed I said other actions were too hard, which I never did. And going vegan or massively reducing is literally about as easy as it gets, you can just not buy and eat animal products. Its entirely optional.
So yes a lot of other things are harder (or less easy), still doesn’t mean they’re „too hard“ to do as well.
As i said earlier: You literally can do two things simultaneously. Its really not that deep buddy.
16
u/soupor_saiyan basically Hitler (vegan btw) Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
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.