Of course. But that's the nature of life on earth, isn't it? Things need to die to grow plants successfully (food or otherwise). Animals out compete each other for resources, which means some die.
Oh, I'm acutely aware of that. Humans often die horribly behind closed doors in "civillised" society. If I had to choose (and I know I won't get to), I'd much prefer an instantaneous death that I didn't know was coming.
Always ends up happening though doesn't it?
There's no need for anybody to justify killing animals for food.
I'd be careful about that. I remember an episode of Jamie Oliver (spit) where he demonstrated how mechanically reclaimed meat was made. All the kids went "yuck" at the results but it didn't put any off them off chicken nuggets. Later he took them to a small holding and pulled some carrots out of the ground and dusted them off. None of the kids would eat them because they had been in the ground.
I think vegans are the reason people are eating more meat. People have met them and are going out of their way not to turn into one.So showing kids how their food is produced could lead to them eating more meat and less veg.
It’s about the inevitability that meat consumption must fall, as it’s a disproportionate source of climate damage and if climate change is to be addressed, then such an obvious “target“ will not be ignored by those who pull the polical levers, just because most of us still like to eat meat.
Yeah right.ISo showing kids how their food is produced could lead to them eating more meat and less veg.
Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.
Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.
I'd say spending a couple of hours in the loft putting in extra insulation will have a bigger personal impact. Do it then get on with your life instead of spending hours looking at food labels to check there's no animal products in them.
And do you think that we have the luxury of ignoring all sources of climate damage which are not the biggest? Your argument is fatuous, that meat production isn’t the largest problem and might therefore just as well be ignored. Obviously all avenues to reduce carbon emissions will need to be pursued in parallel! If you don’t realise that, you haven’t begun to comprehend what the response to climate change will look like.Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.
One fifth is not a 'piddling amount' by any fucking measure and - unlike heating and power generation - it's not essential because there's plenty of readily available alternatives.Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.
They do nowadays - dairy industry is the beef industry.
