The dialog around agriculture and sustainability all too often is akin to telling people to just cut their power consumption rather than discussing or exploring non-emitting sources of energy.
You say I have some weird axe to grind, because I keep pushing back on people saying that meat consumption is a much bigger contributor to GHG emissions than it is. Yet you keep insisting that I'm somehow not accounting for a meat reduction as a piece of the puzzle when I have readily admitted that it should be a piece of the puzzle multiple times, and have happily conceded that it will be necessitated if we switch to the more sustainable, but less productive modes of producing it.
I think I've made my point pretty clearly, and repeatedly. Seems to me like your the one with an axe to grind, one not supported by the data.
My suggestion that people eat one less meat based meal per day is far less drastic that if all meat was produced with the methods you are advocating. Yet, you imply that I am the one calling for the drastic action.
Edit: let me ask you this, what are you actually proposing? Should the government ban meat that isn’t produced the way you suggest? If not, what are you proposing that will have a bigger impact than my suggestion that people eat one less meat based meal a day?
The internet over represents vegans, so you and many others are naturally underestimating how much of a minority anti-meat fanatics truly are.
If a self-proclaimed environmentalist even suggests that we as individuals need to stop eating meat to save the planet, then we naturally assume you are a moralizing vegan who is trying to launder your issue under the guise of environmentalism.
Eating meat is a part of a humans natural diet, studies saying otherwise have repeatedly been proven to be wrong, we no longer trust you. The ketogenic diet has helped many people I know see real health improvements, further cementing our distrust for mainstream dietary "science" that always seem to align with the morals of vegans (and big corporations) but never show any genuine results in real life.
In fact over the course of my entire life, I have never met a preachy vegan who didn't either look like a cancer survivor or a fat ass who's diet only consists of junk food.
Studies showing the negative environmental impact of meat agriculture have the same smell as the ones saying it's bad for our health, we also do not trust them. Studies saying that adjustments to how it is farmed could help the environment, are much more palatable, something people would realistically be willing to try, since there is less likely to be moralizing vegans involved within the equation, and therefore more likely to actually work at all.
Any hint of moralizing veganism within any environmental suggestion is doomed for failure. The difference between your suggestion and his is that yours isn't even going to be acknowledged by the general public, while his solution could at least be feasibly accepted.
That is the difference, even if the effect ends up similar (higher meat prices).
