Climate change un urgent warning.

Vegan Dogs

Forum Legend
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Reaction score
196
Age
65
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
Climate change un urgent warning...meat and animal agriculture the leading cause but media avoiding

Environmental and Climate change issues...warning out again today in the media...but not clear enough statements of TRUTHS about COMMON SENSE EASY FACTS that ANIMAL AGRICULTURE causes MORE effects than motor cars and transport systems ! MUCH more effect ! Governments afraid to tell the TRUTH to protect big business interests just like they did for decades the tobacco industry ? Pharmaceutical companies definitely don’t want people to stop eating meat and dairy. The cholesterol reducing Statins industry is worth around $20 Billion dollars a year on its own!

Oh warnings about Climate change effects again today in the news...Go vegan...animal agriculture is the main cause of climate change...we have managed 70 percent reduction of all wildlife and even hedgehogs in the past 40 years alone due mainly to animal agriculture...takes at least 10 times more land alone to grow food for farm animals than if we ate it directly ourselves instead...

It is high time the Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund started telling the TRUTH clearly also instead of asking for money to fund small effects projects. The CHEAPEST and immediate biggest effect INDIVIDUALS can take action on for the planet, their health and lives of animals including WILDLIFE that is practically extinct for the "sexy" elephant species but thousands of others already affected...is GO VEGAN.

1 football pitch PER SECOND is currently being deforested for animal agriculture, an area 3 times the size of Denmark per year, forests are 30 percent left of the world surface, 20 percent of the world oxygen is produced by the amazon forest, uh oh hey ...

1000 gallons of water to produce 1 meat burger...1 cow drinks 30 liters of water per day and then comes the water for their plant foods needs...never mind taking shower instead of bath water savings hey...not eating 1 beefburger saves more water hey...

The amazon forests are being destroyed mostly for planting farm animal feed for the rich pig burger etc eating populations of the world......(While the chief importers of Brazilian beef were previously Europe and North America, nowadays Asian countries such as China and Russia consume more Brazilian beef than the European market. So, the demand is increasing day by day.

With increasing population and increased per capita meat consumption, the rate of deforestation is increasing every day as well. It is expected that by 2018, the beef export will increase 93 percent, thereby increasing Brazil’s beef market share of world exports to 61 percent. Beef is the most carbon-intensive form of meat production on the planet.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization finds that beef production gives rise to more greenhouse gases than the transportation industry)

Environmental Reasons for Veganism

80-90% of the world's crops go to feeding our livestock- we could easily feed the world's hungry if everyone adopted a vegan diet.

Only 35% of the world’s people can be fed on a meat-based diet, while a plant-based diet could feed everyone.

Animal Flesh and Products are simply Processed Plants with Additives so destructive, inefficient, unhealthy and unnecessarily cruel to all animals humans included.

It is massively INEFFICIENT and DESTRUCTIVE to our planet and environment to provide food, nutrition to ourselves from animal based foods. It is far more efficient to source nutrition from plant based nutrition. Flesh and animal products are simply processed plants. The vast majority of the animals we kill for our food are HERBIVORES eating PLANTS as nutrition. Cut out the massively inefficient middle process. Destruction of habits for wildlife, pollution of our land, rivers, seas, oceans and air are caused not by car emissions mostly but animal agriculture. Climate change and abuse of the planet resources.

In a nutshell...feeding humanity based on burgers, steaks cows milk eggs and other animal based food...means feeding animals huge amounts of crop foods mainly GMO crops that uses the land hugely more than if crops were grown for human food. Pollution of excretions in the ground, rivers, seas and air pollution cause environmental AND human health diseases due to the massive numbers and intensity involved to feed just 20 percent of the RICH developed populations and countries. There is no way at current consumption levels of animal based foods that a country can feed its own population. Poorer countries land is taken by big corporations to grow ANIMAL feed instead of food for people. The ratio is at least 15 to 1 land use for the same level of PROTEIN supply as a measure to compare the inefficiency and waste.


It does not matter which measures are used...whether stating 20 or 51 percent depending on what is measured as the emissions that cause climate change...the MOST single human activity is ANIMAL AGRICULTURE followed by TRANSPORT...and since animal agriculture uses MASSES of TRANSPORT for the FOOD to feed the animals from abroad and the exports movements of animals...this is the main contributor. All the aerosols fridges in the world and energy changes are also needed but THOSE COST HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY to deal with the LESSER causes...what everyone SHOULD do and be told is EATING MEAT AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS causes the main climate change...besides destroying wildlife the most and harming our health the most...pollution...from air stench of manure...causes BILLIONS of COST to health services to treat asthma...DEMENTIA alzheimer is highest amoungst FARM WORKERS and people living rural smelling that unnatural stench. The UN has stated...animal agriculture is the MAIN contributor to climate change emissions more than transport.

1 kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days (New Scientist magazine, 18 July 2007, page 15 ). another easy comparison...A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home. Meat is murder on the environment

"A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said.

As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management.

It says: “Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”

Professor Edgar Hertwich, the lead author of the report, said: “Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels.”

Now we really are head in sand...if we think telling other people in China and India who are BILLIONS getting richer so copying the Western diets of flesh...that THEY should go extinct and leave the minority of us to continue destroying our health and animal lives to not destroy the planet even more than WE have done so far....it is OBVIOUS that the world cannot continue this holocaust that is causing destruction of our planet and affecting the poorest the worst and destroying all real wildlife out there. Forget population control...humans will reproduce unless they decide not to...so far there is no record other than the plague in the middle ages decimation of half of Europe population that humans will stop increasing on this planet. so a SUSTAINABLE lifestyle is needed and SETTING the EXAMPLE is essential.

The UNITED NATIONS described MEAT as the MOST URGENT WORLD PROBLEM !

To solve the climate crisis, we need to rethink how we produce our food

Excessive animal product consumption is responsible for 60 per cent of all biodiversity loss, according to WWF, with the UK food industry alone directly linked to the extinction of an estimated 33 species.

“The world is consuming more animal protein than it needs and this is having a devastating effect on wildlife,” Duncan Williamson, WWF food policy manager said in a statement.18033839_1141823382630963_1295773455067320650_n.jpg 31450701_1399450610201571_8141940314429456384_n.jpg vegan water environmental figures.jpg environment veganism vegan world hunger plant destruction pollution starvation (31).jpg environment veganism vegan world hunger plant destruction pollution starvation (8).jpg dont talk about it.jpg environment vegan reasons (1).jpg environment vegan reasons (2).jpg environment vegan reasons (3).jpg vegan animals rights (236).jpg vegan animals rights (237).jpg vegan animals rights (268).jpg 18033839_1141823382630963_1295773455067320650_n.jpg 31450701_1399450610201571_8141940314429456384_n.jpg vegan water environmental figures.jpg environment veganism vegan world hunger plant destruction pollution starvation (31).jpg environment veganism vegan world hunger plant destruction pollution starvation (8).jpg vegan animals rights (268).jpg vegan animals rights (237).jpg vegan animals rights (236).jpg environment vegan reasons (3).jpg environment vegan reasons (2).jpg environment vegan reasons (1).jpg dont talk about it.jpg
 
To be frank, that's not how it usually works. You can chose the one you want to comment on. :)

The BBC in the UK is doing a bit better with this.

Greenpeace and some other environmental organizations are still failing miserably.

Politicians are still failing miserably!
 
To be frank, that's not how it usually works. You can chose the one you want to comment on. :)

The BBC in the UK is doing a bit better with this.

Greenpeace and some other environmental organizations are still failing miserably.

Politicians are still failing miserably!

OK, I'll start with the rain forest myth, yes the rain forest is being devastated, but no, it isn't for the production of animal feeds. Here is a link to the Rainforest rescue website which explains the main crops that are being grown on the areas cleared and the uses that those crops are being put too.

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/topics/palm-oil/questions-and-answers

You'll note that the above is written by an organisation whose purpose is to fight for the protection of the rainforest, and yet no mention is made of animal feed being the cause for the destruction.

I would add that very little (if any) crop grown on previous rain forest area is grown for animal feed as a primary market, the reason for this is that the produce is far to expensive to be included in an animal food product. When an ingredient is listed on animal feed that might appear to have been derived from a rain forest crop it is invariably the residue after the prime ingredient has been extracted, if it were not used for animal feed it would be dumped.

The reason Greenpeace and other environmental organisations, along with politicians don't take these FACTS seriously is because they have read and researched the truth.
 
To be frank, that's not how it usually works. You can chose the one you want to comment on. :)

The BBC in the UK is doing a bit better with this.

Greenpeace and some other environmental organizations are still failing miserably.

Politicians are still failing miserably!

That's what I am going to grad school for. The chair of the department suggested I even reach out to environmental organizations like the Sierra Club or Environment California/Environment America for part of my project.

In the US something called the Green New Deal is being kicked around but a lot of the Old Guard doesn't get it at all...I'm not just talking about politicians, I'm talking about the people voting for them. The utterly tone deaf Centrist Dem push for Kamala Harris or that Beto jerk for 2020 is a nightmare, like they REALLY don't get it. Mostly older people though. I'm not ageist I have quite a few friends in their 50s and beyond, but that's the voter base of these more established Democrats who have been pussyfooting around climate change for 30 years.

In my enviro law class we're having a discussion on the GND tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
OK, I'll start with the rain forest myth, yes the rain forest is being devastated, but no, it isn't for the production of animal feeds. Here is a link to the Rainforest rescue website which explains the main crops that are being grown on the areas cleared and the uses that those crops are being put too.

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/topics/palm-oil/questions-and-answers

You'll note that the above is written by an organisation whose purpose is to fight for the protection of the rainforest, and yet no mention is made of animal feed being the cause for the destruction.

I would add that very little (if any) crop grown on previous rain forest area is grown for animal feed as a primary market, the reason for this is that the produce is far to expensive to be included in an animal food product. When an ingredient is listed on animal feed that might appear to have been derived from a rain forest crop it is invariably the residue after the prime ingredient has been extracted, if it were not used for animal feed it would be dumped.

The reason Greenpeace and other environmental organisations, along with politicians don't take these FACTS seriously is because they have read and researched the truth.

As someone who is close to graduating in Environmental Science, I just have to say that your snide condescending tone is unwarranted because you're the one who is wrong. Animal agriculture is the hugest problem in the South American rain forests while palm oil is worse in places like Indonesia. There isn't one "rain forest" I live in a rain forest in the Pacific Northwest.
 
As someone who is close to graduating in Environmental Science, I just have to say that your snide condescending tone is unwarranted because you're the one who is wrong. Animal agriculture is the hugest problem in the South American rain forests while palm oil is worse in places like Indonesia. There isn't one "rain forest" I live in a rain forest in the Pacific Northwest.

I apologise if you thought I was being snide and condescending, it certainly wasn't my intention, I was just posting my thoughts and some independent documentary evidence in support.
which crops are being grown in the South American Rain Forests that are going to be used primarily for animal feedstuffs?
 
I apologise if you thought I was being snide and condescending, it certainly wasn't my intention, I was just posting my thoughts and some independent documentary evidence in support.
which crops are being grown in the South American Rain Forests that are going to be used primarily for animal feedstuffs?

Okay thanks, what is destroying the Amazon specifically is slash and burn agriculture to graze "food animals" and cattle is the worst of the bunch. The link between what is fed to animals is strongly correlated to the overall existence of "meat animals" as those foodstuffs, such as crops of soy and grain, could be fed directly to humans cutting out the middle cow. Therefore, being vegan is more sustainable because rather than growing even more soy or corn, those existing crops would be fed directly to hungry people.

This article from a rainforest protection site talks about problems with both animal ag and palm oil: https://rainforestfoundation.org/agriculture/

This article from Yale explains how the majority of cleared land in the Amazon is used for cattle pasture: https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use

This organization suggests that we can protect both forests and indigenous people by ceasing to build roads there, as the roads lead to greater industry and cattle farming: https://amazonwatch.org/news/2015/0...tion-in-the-amazon-empower-indigenous-peoples

Study from the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy indicates meat and dairy ready to overtake oil in causing manmade climate change if something is not done soon: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-meat-dairy-industry-track-surpass.html
 
OK, I'll start with the rain forest myth, yes the rain forest is being devastated, but no, it isn't for the production of animal feeds. Here is a link to the Rainforest rescue website which explains the main crops that are being grown on the areas cleared and the uses that those crops are being put too.

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/topics/palm-oil/questions-and-answers

You'll note that the above is written by an organisation whose purpose is to fight for the protection of the rainforest, and yet no mention is made of animal feed being the cause for the destruction.

I would add that very little (if any) crop grown on previous rain forest area is grown for animal feed as a primary market, the reason for this is that the produce is far to expensive to be included in an animal food product. When an ingredient is listed on animal feed that might appear to have been derived from a rain forest crop it is invariably the residue after the prime ingredient has been extracted, if it were not used for animal feed it would be dumped.

The reason Greenpeace and other environmental organisations, along with politicians don't take these FACTS seriously is because they have read and researched the truth.

Maybe not. I've never been to Brazil so I don't really know what is going on. But I have watched the documentary Cowspiracy. they discuss the point you are making and the Cowspiracy website includes the facts and statistics in the movie with sources.
- http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction.
Margulis, Sergio. "Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon". World Bank Working Paper No. 22. 2003
Tabuchi, Hiroko, Rigny, Claire & White, Jeremy. "Amazon Deforestation, Once Tames, Comes Roaring Back". New York Times. February 2017(New)
Bellantonio, Marisa, et al. "The Ultimate Mystery Meat: Exposing the Secrets Behind Burger King and Global Meat Production". Mighty Earth (New)
Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

The leading causes of rainforest destruction are livestock and feedcrops.
Butler, Rhett. "Cattle Ranching's Impact on the Rainforest". Mongabay.com. July 2012 (New)
Veiga, J.B., et al. "Cattle Ranching in the Amazon Rainforest". UN: Food and Agriculture Oragnization (New)
"Soy Agriculture in the Amazon Basin". Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Sudies: Global Forest Atlas (New)

136 million rainforest acres cleared for animal agriculture.
Butler, Rhett. "Amazon Destruction". Mongabay.com. January 2017
Butler, Rhett A. "Brazilian beef giant announces moratorium on rainforest beef". Mongabay. August 2009

I could list more but if you haven't seen the documentary yet, you really should check it out. It's on Netflix and your local public library probably also has a copy.

The other interesting thing in Cowspiracy is that Kip Anderson is also confused that so many environmental organizations do not mention livestock at all. or just a little bit. He goes to the HQ of organizations like Greenpeace and a few others. Most of them just don't want to talk to him. They are also part of the Cowspiracy. It's pretty eye-opening. And although its a pretty established fact that a major contributor of Greenhouse gases is livestock, Al Gore's Inconvenient Truths doesn't even mention it. And DiCaprio's Before the Flood only discusses it for 5 minutes. Although those are a pretty good 5 minutes.

Sometimes they use the excuse that it is just not what people want to hear. some of them are just bought off. And some of them are afraid of retributions. or not getting donations.

I know, conspiracies (sigh). There is usually a simpler answer. But initially, the Mafia, MK Ultra, and the Iran Contra affair were considered just crazy nutball stories, too.
 
Environmental and Climate change issues...warning out again today in the media...but not clear enough statements of TRUTHS about COMMON SENSE EASY FACTS that ANIMAL AGRICULTURE causes MORE effects than motor cars and transport systems ! MUCH more effect ! Governments afraid to tell the TRUTH to protect big business interests just like they did for decades the tobacco industry ? Pharmaceutical companies definitely don’t want people to stop eating meat and dairy. The cholesterol reducing Statins industry is worth around $20 Billion dollars a year on its own!

Good job. That must have been a lot of work. Just wanted to give you a little extra shout out. Loved the elephant cartoon.
 
Maybe not. I've never been to Brazil so I don't really know what is going on. But I have watched the documentary Cowspiracy. they discuss the point you are making and the Cowspiracy website includes the facts and statistics in the movie with sources.
- http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction.
Margulis, Sergio. "Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon". World Bank Working Paper No. 22. 2003
Tabuchi, Hiroko, Rigny, Claire & White, Jeremy. "Amazon Deforestation, Once Tames, Comes Roaring Back". New York Times. February 2017(New)
Bellantonio, Marisa, et al. "The Ultimate Mystery Meat: Exposing the Secrets Behind Burger King and Global Meat Production". Mighty Earth (New)
Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

The leading causes of rainforest destruction are livestock and feedcrops.
Butler, Rhett. "Cattle Ranching's Impact on the Rainforest". Mongabay.com. July 2012 (New)
Veiga, J.B., et al. "Cattle Ranching in the Amazon Rainforest". UN: Food and Agriculture Oragnization (New)
"Soy Agriculture in the Amazon Basin". Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Sudies: Global Forest Atlas (New)

136 million rainforest acres cleared for animal agriculture.
Butler, Rhett. "Amazon Destruction". Mongabay.com. January 2017
Butler, Rhett A. "Brazilian beef giant announces moratorium on rainforest beef". Mongabay. August 2009

I could list more but if you haven't seen the documentary yet, you really should check it out. It's on Netflix and your local public library probably also has a copy.

The other interesting thing in Cowspiracy is that Kip Anderson is also confused that so many environmental organizations do not mention livestock at all. or just a little bit. He goes to the HQ of organizations like Greenpeace and a few others. Most of them just don't want to talk to him. They are also part of the Cowspiracy. It's pretty eye-opening. And although its a pretty established fact that a major contributor of Greenhouse gases is livestock, Al Gore's Inconvenient Truths doesn't even mention it. And DiCaprio's Before the Flood only discusses it for 5 minutes. Although those are a pretty good 5 minutes.

Sometimes they use the excuse that it is just not what people want to hear. some of them are just bought off. And some of them are afraid of retributions. or not getting donations.

I know, conspiracies (sigh). There is usually a simpler answer. But initially, the Mafia, MK Ultra, and the Iran Contra affair were considered just crazy nutball stories, too.


That's quite a catalogue of reading material, thank you!!
I have discovered that we have some common ground, we both agree that the destruction of the rain forest is a bad thing.
However having read the articles it seems that there is disagreement between the points made in the articles that you provided links to, and the general information that some vegan activists like to put out. The articles tend to suggest that the local population or even international corporations clear the forest and use cattle to graze the area because this gives them rights to claim ownership of the land, they use cattle because they are the cheapest and least risky option to achieve their aim.
The vegan activists suggest that the cattle grazing is to meet demand for beef products, which isn't the case.
The issue with the rain forest deforestation is a political problem, if the removal of incentives for deforestation were implemented then the clearing would stop, Where as any change in the demand for beef will have zero effect on deforestation. The grazing of the beef is just a vehicle being used to meet an end, the deforestation is being driven by economic factors , not demand for beef.

I will continue with my reading..:)
 
That's quite a catalogue of reading material, thank you!!
I have discovered that we have some common ground, we both agree that the destruction of the rain forest is a bad thing.....
I will continue with my reading..:)

Not sure you need to actually read those references. I haven't. I just included them so that you didn't think those factoids are made up. However sometimes checking the references are a good idea. I myself have found that factoids can be taken out of context.

Good points. Something else to consider is that some rainforest in Brazil is cleared for crops. Soybeans are very popular. And most of those soybeans are exported to the US. This is bad for any number of reasons. but one reason is that a lot of the soybeans are bought by the company that makes chicken feed.

Right now I'm reading The Omnivore's Dilemma and just loving it. It's written by Michal Pollan who I first discovered by watching Cooked on Netflix ( Obviously, I really liked that documentary too). Pollan is NOT a vegan. his book discusses all the ways we get our food. Us vegans tend to concentrate on the animal aspect of Factory Farming. but this book discusses some of the other aspects. And the complicated interrelationships that make simple solutions impossible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Three Chickpeas
That's quite a catalogue of reading material, thank you!!
I have discovered that we have some common ground, we both agree that the destruction of the rain forest is a bad thing.
However having read the articles it seems that there is disagreement between the points made in the articles that you provided links to, and the general information that some vegan activists like to put out. The articles tend to suggest that the local population or even international corporations clear the forest and use cattle to graze the area because this gives them rights to claim ownership of the land, they use cattle because they are the cheapest and least risky option to achieve their aim.
The vegan activists suggest that the cattle grazing is to meet demand for beef products, which isn't the case.
The issue with the rain forest deforestation is a political problem, if the removal of incentives for deforestation were implemented then the clearing would stop, Where as any change in the demand for beef will have zero effect on deforestation. The grazing of the beef is just a vehicle being used to meet an end, the deforestation is being driven by economic factors , not demand for beef.

I will continue with my reading..:)

Oh no, that's not true. I love your pretzel logic but no. Meat is driving deforestation and habitat destruction and it's because people are demanding meat. It's not just "vegan activists." There is no such thing as a meat eating environmentalist.
 
Not sure you need to actually read those references. I haven't. I just included them so that you didn't think those factoids are made up. However sometimes checking the references are a good idea. I myself have found that factoids can be taken out of context.

Good points. Something else to consider is that some rainforest in Brazil is cleared for crops. Soybeans are very popular. And most of those soybeans are exported to the US. This is bad for any number of reasons. but one reason is that a lot of the soybeans are bought by the company that makes chicken feed.

Right now I'm reading The Omnivore's Dilemma and just loving it. It's written by Michal Pollan who I first discovered by watching Cooked on Netflix ( Obviously, I really liked that documentary too). Pollan is NOT a vegan. his book discusses all the ways we get our food. Us vegans tend to concentrate on the animal aspect of Factory Farming. but this book discusses some of the other aspects. And the complicated interrelationships that make simple solutions impossible.

I think the attitudes in books like the Omnivores Dilemma are outdated. It's a fifteen year old book and a lot of the science surrounding climate, agriculture, and meat production has advanced since then. I'm not saying that it doesn't have good ideas or good points, but this reassurance of self that being a conscious omnivore is enough or buying local is the best eco option has been disproven repeatedly. There are so many copies of it at my local used book store that I'm obviously not alone in this view.

People who want to keep eating meat will reach back into the past for older sources to justify their views, kind of like how climate change deniers enjoy posting articles from 1912 or 1979 to back up their points, anything remotely recent oddly missing.

I'm not saying there isn't something to be gained from different perspectives, but be careful with the slippery slope of justification meat eaters want to rope you into.
 
Information is controlled, big businesses are keeping such information from spreading through media that they have great influence with. It just like the way wearing bras more of the time is linked to much greater likelihood of breast cancer, but that information is supressed, because of businesses that have vested interest, and this information never is reaching those who should know through the media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forest Nymph
OK, I'll start with the rain forest myth, yes the rain forest is being devastated, but no, it isn't for the production of animal feeds. Here is a link to the Rainforest rescue website which explains the main crops that are being grown on the areas cleared and the uses that those crops are being put too.

Questions and answers about palm oil

You'll note that the above is written by an organisation whose purpose is to fight for the protection of the rainforest, and yet no mention is made of animal feed being the cause for the destruction.

I would add that very little (if any) crop grown on previous rain forest area is grown for animal feed as a primary market, the reason for this is that the produce is far to expensive to be included in an animal food product. When an ingredient is listed on animal feed that might appear to have been derived from a rain forest crop it is invariably the residue after the prime ingredient has been extracted, if it were not used for animal feed it would be dumped.

The reason Greenpeace and other environmental organisations, along with politicians don't take these FACTS seriously is because they have read and researched the truth.

I know this is an old post but I wanted to chime in ...

"Animal agriculture — livestock and animal feed is a significant driver of deforestation"


"cattle-ranching, the most important cause of direct conversion of rainforests (Jan Maarten Dros, 2004). Soy developers then capitalize on the cattle ranchers and take over their land, pushing cattle ranching (and deforestation) towards new pioneer areas."
 
It’s actually even much worse than „People concerned about Climate Change don’t address Veganism“

That is depressing but unsurprising. The older I get and the more I learn about the 'free market' the more convinced I become that nothing less than complete systemic change is the only way forward.

Deeply embedded financial systems are what is causing all our problems. Profit and debt are concepts which should be made illegal.