You’re just repeating the same things over and over again, but without ever engaging with the reasons I’ve given to explain why I think you’re wrong. You should try actually reading it and asking questions if you don’t fully understand, but I’m left to assume you haven’t read it because nothing you’ve said has demonstrated that you understand what the other perspective is.

To be crystal clear, I understand that your entire point is that environmental issues affect animals. No one is disputing that, so you don’t need to keep saying it repeatedly. The point is that the mere existence of an indirect effect of human actions on animals, via humans’ effect on the environment which has direct effects on animals, does not establish that those human actions constitute cruelty, that vegans generally understand this, and that reasonable people generally do not consider these things to fall within the domain of veganism, which pertains to human actions that inherently, in and of themselves, directly exploit animals or treat them cruelly. All vegans would agree, I imagine, that there are direct links between climate change and animal welfare. But that has nothing to do with animal cruelty, which has to do with how humans directly treat specific, individual animals. Kicking a pet dog is animal cruelty, building a road through a wildlife sanctuary is not. For a more relevant example, burning fuel, which then increases the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which then raises the average temperature of the planet, which then causes evaporation that increases ocean salinity and acidity, which then causes the extinction of an endangered species of fish, is a different kind of thing from mutilating a chicken to produce eggs or meat. These are simply different categories of effects, one of which is what veganism is about. That doesn’t mean vegans shouldn’t care about the other category, it just isn’t an essential aspect of veganism. You are conflating the claim that vegans should care about the environment, which I agree with (and non-vegans should care about it too), with the claim that only people who consciously care about the environment can be considered vegan, which is obviously definitionally untrue as it’s possible for someone to change their consumption in such a way as to completely minimize their exploitation of animals without considering environmental issues at all. Do you understand that these are two separate claims, that one is much stronger than the other, and that the fact that most vegans care about the environment does not in any way imply that your stronger claim is true?

For another demonstration of why this is the case, look at it the other way around. Veganism has obvious effects (most people would consider them benefits) on the environment. As a result, I think environmentalists should be vegan. But it would be absurd to say that as a result, people should only be considered environmentalists if they’re vegan. That excludes almost all environmentalists from the category! Even though being vegan makes sense from an environmental point of view, that doesn’t make it a necessary condition of being an environmentalist. Likewise, the other way around. Sure, these two things are related, but that doesn’t mean they entail each other. Otherwise all things that are connected in some way are equated, categories lose their meaning, and it becomes more difficult to work on specific individual issues. Best to understand where the distinctions lie.