Not OP. I think it’s funny how you’re accusing them of “bullying” when their comments aren’t aggressive at all, just pointing out a practice they disagree with. But somehow your multi-paragraph, raging, sorry, uh… “laughing” comment filled with direct insults and patronizing dismissal, should NOT be considered “bullying.”

Like, I don’t buy into the idea that anyone can bully someone else in an anonymous Internet forum, outside of doxxing or repeated harassment. But looking at this, one of you is clearly much more aggressive and bothered than the other here.

Not sure which post you’re referring to, but from Our World in Data, pig farming generates more emissions than farming chickens. They are lower than beef, but that’s not saying much, since beef is an order of magnitude worse than most other foods. Pig farming also generates four times more emissions than soy.

This new report is the same story all over again. From the linked report:

Applying this factor to the standardized production results in the emissions from the combustion of marketed products, comprising nearly 90% of total emissions tracked by the database. These are scope three category 11 emissions, corresponding to “use of sold products”

The vast majority of emissions attributed to these companies, nearly 90%, are those emitted by the consumers who buy the crude oil/natural gas/etc. But news outlets are obscuring that fact in their headlines, which makes it seem like the gas companies themselves are wholly responsible.

Many beekeepers want to lessen the chance of “swarming,” where the bees decide to move their hive somewhere else, by clipping the queen bee’s wings. So instead of protection money, it’s more like the bees got their kneecaps busted in after a visit from Big Tony.

That’s a common misconception that’s been passed around the Internet so long that it’s become common knowledge. There’s a great (now deleted, but archived) writeup showing that the Wachowskis always intended humans to be batteries. The actual source of the “processors” idea came from a Neil Gaiman short story written to promote the movie at its release

Maybe we can’t convince everyone to quit eating meat, but I would hope that we could appeal to self-described environmentalists, who have a stated interest in making sustainable changes.

That’s the OP’s point, after all. That the science unambiguously states that we need to stop eating meat if we care about meeting our climate goals. Any environmentalist who learns that this needs to happen and still chooses to eat meat is acting against their own ethics.

It has to be both. Our World in Data puts it one way:

We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers.

Or to cut through the flowery language - farms need to stop producing meat, and people need to stop eating it.

The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual.