It is always just a black and white thing without seeing the good things. Just like this kid, he could have maybe killed more and has restrained himself really hard. If we blame him for what he did he will just kill more the next time.

The most positive climate impact you can have is not having a kid, not having a car and not flying, in that order.

I do not have any kids, that’s why I don’t have to worry about your attitudes. But it is not a single thing we have to change, it all has to change.

Transport accounts for around one-fifth of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions …Aviation – while it often gets the most attention in discussions on action against climate change – accounts for only 11.6% of transport emissions.

Food is responsible for approximately 26% of global GHG emissions.

Research suggests that if everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%

Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Where I live meat production goes down already, but you not having a kid will not change anything because you not getting laid was so predictable that every climate model considered it already.

E: Nice touch that you did not refute that meat is bad for your health and now focus on “but there are other things too”

A innocent animal suffers and dies for you taste pleasure. According to the WHO and pretty much any health organization it is carcinogenic, causes heart diseases, diabetes, pneumonia and according to the IPCC going vegan is the biggest step a single person can do to fight climate change, a step which, if do not take it, even with 0 fossile fuels climate change will destroy agriculture as we know it. But I am old, lol, so whatever.

“Both go home and devour the flesh of a animal, killed for them by a anonymous worker in a factory.”

I have the wiha 44008 with interchangable heads, it fine if you don’t need different heads all the time because changing the heads takes some time.

For most of the 140 years Exxon exists it was not the willful ignorance of the consumers but the deception, propaganda, lies and lobbying they made. While we are to blame for not overthrowing capitalism, companies are to blame for their malicious actions. If they just sold their product without mentioning the known problems I would agree.

The animal industry is responsible for 20% of the GHG and even though we are in the chains of capitalism we have the choice to not support them, do they exist with your consent?

I too eat in the dark.

Whatever it takes to end this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyestalk_ablation

Because I don’t want the equivalent models. Never wanted them. They are absurd.

I have seen Spring and Renault Zoe on highways, in Germany none the less. If your argument is you need big fast cars for highways I don’t see it that way.

“Everyone in the city needs their own car” was not the argument I made, just as your comment did not mean to say that everyone who does not live in the city needs a 3.5 ton truck.

And the Rivian R1T is 6949 pounds.

But there is the dacia spring with 2304 pound.

EV does not automatically have to result in huge heavy cars.

Try this: https://makefrontendshitagain.party/

Animal products. No, it was not worth it.

No, I am against the prohibition of common terms, I advocate for a stricter declaration of ingredients. “Milk” alone could be milk from any mammal, cow, goat, human. Steak could be a cut from any animal, that is why a the animal it is from is declared. Oat milk is called milk since centuries but now the industry fears competition and is publishing propaganda and pays lobbyism for restrictive laws.

Right, but ‘steak’ does mean a little more than that. It also would indicate a particular kind of cut of meat, which would generally indicate minimal connective tissue, tenderness, location, etc.

So as long as it has “steak” written on it you just care that is any animal with those properties?

Would you like ‘meat-free’ labels allowed on foods that had absolutely no muscle-tissue content, but did contain animal organ, bone, and fat content?

I want a strong indicator that a product contains any animal products. There are already many labels for plant based products but none are required by any law.

I am in strong favor a big prominent “contains animal products” label. It would make live so much easier.

Do you buy “steak” as in a generic description for something from any animal, or do you buy bison, camel, goat or horse steak? I have only seen plant based steaks or schnitzel where it has it in the name. “Plant based product” or “product based on soy/pea”

This sounds kinda wrong, if you would put that logic in other circumstances we are at the argument the “anti-women-voting-right” argument from the crazy lady: Women should only be allowed to vote if they work. Or old people who retire, should they not be allowed to vote anymore? People who have medical conditions and so on…

or somehow block the empathy from their brain applying to animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Meat-eating