• november@lemmy.vg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      The article links to the study, but go ahead and keep stuffing your fingers in your ears.

      • the_elder@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        41 minutes ago

        Yeah none of the studies linked put animal ag over 17% of global emissions, while it provides the majority of protein to the global populace. Sanctioning the biggest polluters (e.g. big oil, chemical companies, etc) would be a far more effective means of reducing global pollution. That’s not to say we can’t reduce our consumption of animal protein - we absolutely should, IMO - but calling 17% tops the leading cause is a spurious argument.

        • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          34 minutes ago

          I’m not sure I follow, 17% sounds like a large amount and easily could be called “the leading cause” if the next highest industry is less that 17%?

          Are you thinking along the lines that 50%+ is needed before describing something as leading?