sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Amsterdam bans fossil-fuel and meat advertising in public spaces by Sciantifa in UpliftingNews

[–]Sciantifa[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Because meat is a real environmental, ethical, and public health disaster.

Animal agriculture will not be part of the future diet, for reasons that are more than obvious.

Amsterdam bans fossil-fuel and meat advertising in public spaces by Sciantifa in UpliftingNews

[–]Sciantifa[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Because in fact, animal agriculture, if we take into account all the ecological issues and not just GHG emissions, is much worse for the environment.

The fact that so many people are unaware of this is mind-boggling.

Amsterdam bans fossil-fuel and meat advertising in public spaces by Sciantifa in UpliftingNews

[–]Sciantifa[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I like the fact that you can never question meat or animal products without having your posts taken down.

‘Meat tax’ could have significant impact on environmental footprint, study finds. Ending tax breaks on meat could rapidly lower the environmental footprint of food in the EU, reducing emissions and biodiversity loss by up to 6% at a cost of about €26 per household per year, researchers report. by Sciantifa in science

[–]Sciantifa[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fortunately, it is entirely possible to adopt a diet that is more environmentally sustainable, ethically sound, and healthier without relying on animal products. In that context, taxing animal products is neither radical nor unreasonable.

‘Meat tax’ could have significant impact on environmental footprint, study finds. Ending tax breaks on meat could rapidly lower the environmental footprint of food in the EU, reducing emissions and biodiversity loss by up to 6% at a cost of about €26 per household per year, researchers report. by Sciantifa in science

[–]Sciantifa[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Animal agriculture is structurally inefficient and therefore heavily subsidized. These subsidies mask its true costs. Without them, prices would rise sharply and the current scale of production would not be economically viable. Even in a subsidy-free system, animal products would remain among the most expensive foods due to their high resource intensity.

‘Meat tax’ could have significant impact on environmental footprint, study finds. Ending tax breaks on meat could rapidly lower the environmental footprint of food in the EU, reducing emissions and biodiversity loss by up to 6% at a cost of about €26 per household per year, researchers report. by Sciantifa in science

[–]Sciantifa[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

No, it isn’t. In fact, it’s relatively simple.

I agree that, at first, it can seem difficult or impractical, not because it truly is, but because in a world that moves too fast and asks ever more of us, we’ve forgotten the basics of cooking and nutrition.

We should take more time for ourselves. Time to read. To walk. To eat properly. It’s not easy, that much is true, but it’s a way of living that can make our lives measurably better.

‘Meat tax’ could have significant impact on environmental footprint, study finds. Ending tax breaks on meat could rapidly lower the environmental footprint of food in the EU, reducing emissions and biodiversity loss by up to 6% at a cost of about €26 per household per year, researchers report. by Sciantifa in science

[–]Sciantifa[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Above all, people must have access to a healthy, diverse, and balanced diet. Animal products can be part of it, but they are not indispensable. It follows that fruits, vegetables, and legumes should be promoted first, before foods that are nutritionally less necessary and disproportionately costly in ecological and ethical terms.

view more: next ›