66
Meat is a leading emissions source – but few outlets report on it, analysis finds
(www.theguardian.com)
Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
This statement itself is very misleading, as animal agriculture's total contribution to climate warming is much greater than that of fossil fuels. [1] [2] [3]
When trying to change others perspectives, it's all about phrasing new information in an approachable fashion. For those who've never truly thought of agriculture's impact on the climate, hearing there's a much bigger footprint for it when compared to oil isn't exactly approachable. So first explaining it's larger is the smart move, as only after this is understood does it make sense to cover the extent.
This could just be me though, as a vegan I'm often asked why by others. Explaining the primary reason is the environment alone gets a crazy range of responses, from confusion to disbelief. This being the case, I'd say getting people to accept the climate footprint ranking of each is the logical first step. Especially when breaking this down for someone who's never actually considered the impact of agricultural on our planet!
I agree. And the line that I quoted from the article is the opposite of this; it is leading the reader to believe that the "climate footprint ranking" of animal agriculture is lower than that of fossil fuels. Regardless of whether we are trying to change anyone's mind or what we think is the most effective way to do so, providing false or misleading information is something to avoid.