Thanks for sending all the stuff. Unfortunately although most of those links demonstrate long-term reduction, livestock production still has far more intensive results than a non-meat diet. The carbon footprints of livestock consumption continues to be one of the most CO2 intensive methods of farming and agriculture. And in fact, personal choice at the grocery store is one of the best ways to make a statement. The almighty dollar speaks volumes to lower emissions in this industry. If you have sources on how livestock production can realistically compete with plant-based diets on a per capita emissions output basis, I'd be happy to listen.
Unfortunately you're still dead wrong on telling people to do something without policy. Good example? COVID-19 vaccinations. The majority of our country got them voluntarily without any mandated policy to do so. Why? Because people trust the science. Another one? Smoking. The majority of Canadian's don't smoke, and it's not because smoking is illegal. It's because they trust the science that smoking is bad. So really, your whole point about people need policy to change is just not true. For some things, sure - but people who see the negative effects of things like infections and diseases and understand the consequences of these make rational decisions. People can - and do - apply the same logic to things that have environmental consequences, and take personal responsibility for their actions that perpetuate that.
I must say though, that your response is quite thorough, and with the personal insults you included, you are really a dedicated meat lover and internet warrior!
|