Convinced? Rate this contribution from the community — and help make the best ideas visible.
3 comments
Join the discussion: ask questions, challenge ideas, and add context so the post becomes clearer.
1000 characters remaining
N. B.
10 months ago
That is absolutely correct. I just wanted to point out that there are differences. It is clear that advertising is out of place. In the concrete implementation of further measures (which are needed), these differences become relevant.
1
N. B.
10 months ago
Important: There are big differences depending on feeding/keeping. Especially harmful are large-scale farms without land that depend on feed imports.
0
O. H.AuthorPartner in Crime
10 months ago
Even if we optimize the attitude, meat production remains resource-intensive; the CO2e balance (especially due to methane) is many times worse compared to plant-based proteins. Since today's meat consumption is also massively above the health recommendations, it is questionable from a regulatory policy perspective to subsidize animal husbandry so heavily. We are experiencing a double market distortion: We first promote the production and sale of meat with tax money, only to then laboriously correct the resulting environmental burdens (such as ammonia emissions) with further billions. This is neither ecologically nor economically sustainable.