> The anti-meat take is always lacking in nuance
The pro-meat take is (as always) lacking scientific basis for their claims, and ignores the biggest problems of the field, like biodiversity loss, deforestation, eutrophication/pollution, pesticide/herbicide use, ethical concerns etc. All science points in opposite direction from yours, no science exists supporting your claims.
For scientific rebutal of your opinion see relevant part of the debate "Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?" between Alan Savory (a big proponent of rotational "regenerative" grazing) and George Monbiot.
I watched it all, but am linking directly to the most relevant part.
https://youtu.be/rhwEaCmQ2XE?t=1235
--- few links ---
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
Meat eating could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi...
Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...
How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm
Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
The pro-meat take is (as always) lacking scientific basis for their claims, and ignores the biggest problems of the field, like biodiversity loss, deforestation, eutrophication/pollution, pesticide/herbicide use, ethical concerns etc. All science points in opposite direction from yours, no science exists supporting your claims.
For scientific rebutal of your opinion see relevant part of the debate "Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?" between Alan Savory (a big proponent of rotational "regenerative" grazing) and George Monbiot.
I watched it all, but am linking directly to the most relevant part.
https://youtu.be/rhwEaCmQ2XE?t=1235
--- few links ---
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
Meat eating could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi...
Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...
How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm
Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...