They would sell $165 billion worth of meat, 22% of all meat products consumed in the US to a handful of billionaires and the US government? Ignoring the international business.
Billionaires would never touch that meat. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/10/zuckerberg-cattle-hawaii-beef-environment
Take a look at the Cargill family, 14 billionaires. From the wiki about the current CEO:
In 2019, former U.S. Congressman Henry A. Waxman, in a report by Mighty Earth, called Cargill “the worst company in the world” and noted that it drives “the most important problems facing our world” (deforestation, pollution, climate change, exploitation) “at a scale that dwarfs their closest competitors.”
Do you think that is because they use every cent to burn coal and oil in their backyard, or
do you think it is because they produce and sell products to consumers which can not be produced without harm to the environment?
99% of the planet could produce zero pollution for the rest of our lives and it wouldn’t even make a dent in the amount of pollution created by the billionaire class.
How do you think they would create that damage to the environment if nobody would buy their products?
but how?
I doubt its real. Look at the hole and the angle of the barrel. You would have to start with a lowered barrel and raise it while you drive trough to keep that hole so small.
the wording was a bit of, it should spell “carcasses raised with their own shit”
A section of the A24 was limited to 130 kmph for 20 years to reduce accidents. Because the reduction the speed limit was lifted early this year. Now there are 8% more accidents with injury and 42% more injured. Politicians call now to make it possible to limit the section again.
We ded
Most likely outcome (high confidence)
still letting this here: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
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
Its a multitude of reasons for people to go vegan: The animals, their own health, the probability of not creating a living hell on earth. The reason why vegans try to convince others is often because after a few years most are so disconnected from the killing of others for taste where it is a giant argument. The suffering and abuse of 90 billion sentient land animals per year alone is for most good enough to stop supporting it. I have surrendered that argument for most discussions because it is hard to have that empathy while it is a part in your live. It wasn’t for me, although is was not challenged in that view back then. So now my arguments moved more towards egoism which sometimes works.
I am vegan since 5 years, before I was (don’t judge me, or do- its deserved) 10 years vegetarian. Since ~15 years? PV on my roof which feed into the grid many times more power than I used I rarely travel, not one flight. I advocate and work towards a sustainable future. Demonstrations and some political work. Go on, check my my posts and judge for yourself if I was maybe sarcastic?
Apocalyptic accelerationism from home. Learn these 5 easy steps how YOU! can increase your contribution to annihilation.
Some sure did, but I don’t mind it :)
Veganism is the movement which has the highest potential to change society and is a huge impact on the environment. (IPCC: biggest single step one can take / even without fossile fuels our current food system will still contribute with +2°C to global warming)
And it does not take away from any other activity we should pursue in the fight for climate, while ending support for some billionaires like Wesley Batista
You think that after 99% of the US population decided to stop supporting climate change by not buying meat from billionaires, those 99% would still allow them to continue? Not for their own taste and convenience but for some billionaires profits?