Post by abillion
At COP27, ”Livestock” was only mentioned in 3 agreements and no concrete actions were tabled 😒
In spite of the fact that animal agriculture accounts for a minimum of 16.5% of total global emissions. The environmental impact from animal agriculture can’t be justified as 83% of the farmland is used to only produce 18% of the calories and 37% of the protein in the global food supply.
Besides, waste from a dairy farm of 2.5k cows produces as much waste as the size of Miami!
So why does COP27 barely address the issue of animal agriculture and its effects on the environment? Thoughts? 🧐
171 likes
maryanarch 😢 😠 😡 🤮 🤕 🌍 🌏 🌎 😢 💔 6 likesReply
maryanarch I’m sorry… no word… just sadness and anger. People don’t want to talk about it because they don’t want to change. It’s all about money… So much fighting ahead… 💪 ✊ 🌱 20 likesReply
gibson23 We can't rely on COPs to discuss real climate issues and act for change. They're just a huge showcase for companies, lobbysts and millionaires, aka: greenwashing16 likesReply
sninkelletti 51% according to Goodland and Anhang, 87% according to Dr Sailesh Rao of #climatehealers 7 likesReply
sninkelletti The Ag Fairness Alliance is trying to redirect agriculture subsidies in the next farm bill. This is our most important focus imo, as we could help farmers in the US end animal agriculture for their own sake. 6 likesReply
sianski I agree with comments above, the one thing that drives change is, sadly, money.
The positive thing right now is that companies can see that there’s profit to be made from plant-based food and that will motivate them to move away from punishing animals for gain. Advertising encourages ignorance, so they will hold out on animals for food by saying it’s all welfare regulated. But we’ve seen the exposés by brave activists showing horrible conditions and treatment on the very farms that monitoring groups like Red Tractor endorse.
The most optimistic thing is to have a billion of us saying we know what abuse is going on and we don’t want any part in it. Thanks abillion for setting that in motion. 14 likesReply
The positive thing right now is that companies can see that there’s profit to be made from plant-based food and that will motivate them to move away from punishing animals for gain. Advertising encourages ignorance, so they will hold out on animals for food by saying it’s all welfare regulated. But we’ve seen the exposés by brave activists showing horrible conditions and treatment on the very farms that monitoring groups like Red Tractor endorse.
The most optimistic thing is to have a billion of us saying we know what abuse is going on and we don’t want any part in it. Thanks abillion for setting that in motion. 14 likesReply
vikas Thank you 🙏 5 likesReply
gingersaint Basically because of the business. Addressing is antagonizing3 likesReply
stefietokee Lobbies and also IGNORANCE, they have no idea how else, what else to eat. 4 likesReply
louisg These COP meetings are a waste of time, money and energy if ALL the biggest causes of GHG emissions are not discussed. No industry should be so sacred that they should not be part of the solution.3 likesReply
bbilge 🤔🤔 I guess the more richness that it brings to already rich people and their power on mean media or researches and of course on the governments or lawmaking process 😔 We also should not forget the psychological background, that animal use is everywhere and almost in every culture for centuries plus changing habits needs discomfort in the start so it takes courage to decide... I think it s a complex problem, I guess there can not be only those reasons... 1 likeReply
