[llmthrow102]

Greenhouse gas emissions are only a fraction of terrible things that humans are inflicting on the environment, and meat/dairy are both nutritious food that provides requirements for sustenance, and if not eaten need to be replaced by something else that will also cause greenhouse gas emissions (aka, a 10% reduction in meat consumption does not equal to a 1.45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions)

I think it's kind of crazy to place the burden of environmental destruction on individual buying habits, rather than the people in power who actually have the ability to make sweeping changes that might actually move the needle.

Let's start with not incentivizing, then disincentivizing the mass production and importation of plastic garbage waste and e-waste that not only create greenhouse gas emissions but pollute the environment in other, irreversible ways.

And if your government and leaders don't make this a priority, and regardless of who you vote in, big-name corpo donors get their way instead, then maybe it's time for a new government.

[saagarjha]

It won’t be 1.45% but it will be 1.3%. Meat is exceptionally inefficient compared to non-meat. It sounds false but it really is like that :(

[themk]

Meat and dairy are bad for GHG, but they are also terrible for most of the other bad things we do to the planet. Eutrophication, species extinction, habitat loss, water use.

And the people in power do what the people want, that's why they are in power. Imagine telling people they couldn't eat as much meat. Would be political suicide.

That's why individual buying habits are important. If many individuals change, we might change as a society. And at some point there might be a tipping point where the people in charge can make a change.

Also, blaming other people for all the problems is not a great way to solve a problem. Take some responsibility.