DarthFrodo

I don't know if media coverage and public awareness about the atrocities are high enough in India to make that judgement.

You've already made strides to avoid eating anything that may be processed in the same facility as animal products.

But why? This would just make it much harder for (smaller) companies to bring vegan products to market.

You largely eat whole ingredients that you buy and prepare personally. And you would probably never touch a pre-made meat substitute.

Most vegans I know eat meat substitutes rather regularly. Eating a whole food diet is primarily motivated by health. Some vegans also try to be as healthy as possible, sure, but many don't really care about that.

Ethical veganism is about not financially supporting the commodification of animals, especially on factory farms, nothing more.

Weird that this takes so long, with an ongoing war right here in Europe...

I agree that many urban areas need a lot more and better public transport, which is a systemic solution.

In rural regions it's not practical to build enough infrastructure to replace private transport though. Electric cars are a good solution there and will also get more affordable in the next years (over the lifetime they are already roughly as cheap as gas cars).

It doesn't make much sense, but conservatives are already losing their minds over the 25g we're allowed to carry "nooo, we're enabling drug dealers with those massive quantities". If they went for 500g at home, there would've been a lot more negative press I imagine and it might not have gone through. Maybe it will be adjusted a few years down the line.

BP and Shell only have that much power exacly because people buy fossil fuels from them. If demand would drop, their profits and political power would drop accordingly. As long as we don't even hold the biggest financiers of these companies responsible, how can anything change? Demand drives supply.

It's like saying "As long as hitmans exist, I won't give a shit about the people who pay hitmans, all consumption under capitalism is unethical anyways so anything goes." As long as we ignore those who actually fund the problem, we won't be able to fix anything.

the "quality of life" question is rather meaningless, animals that exist in the food supply chain were literally born so they could be turned into food.

And if someone bred humans to be slaves, these would be meant to be slaves, so it would actually be moral to keep them as slaves.

Solid logic. Abolishion was a mistake, guys!

There's always a supplier and a consumer. The pollution of these 100 corporations is caused on behalf of their customers who fund them in exchange for fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. They are both responsible, it's 2 sides of the same coin.

Of course, much of this pollution isn't really avoidable at this point. We can't have 100% renewable power and electric cars tomorrow. Some really polluting industries will take decades to decarbonize, like steel and cement production. But this makes it even more urgent to adress the low hanging fruit asap, i.e. big sources of pollution that can easily be cut. Private jets are a prime example.

You could say just a few private jet flights or chopping down one single forest won't make a dent in global carbon emissions, but that doesn't mean that thousands around the world can keep on doing it indefinitely without consequences for all of us. Especially if they are idols for millions of people, normalizing harm to society that we can't afford.

A land rover isn't nearly as polluting and doesn't drive nearly as far. More importantly, the heart surgeon isn't a role model in terms of lifestyle aspirations for literally hundreds of millions of followers.

People shouldn't be judged on a single data point.

It's not like we're talking about stealing some sweets from children or something. Climate change just gets worse and worse and worse until we reach net zero co2 emissions. As long as it's culturally accepted to cause massive amounts of completely unnecessary emissions, we don't have the slightest chance of fixing this.

The only way a decent person could be doing this is if they were completely uneducated about climate change and their impact as a role model.

Admittedly I don't know much about her as a person, but how can someone who uses a private jet in 2024 be considered a decent person by any stretch?

Having such a ludicrously unsustainable lifestyle in a climate emergency that will kill millions and displace hundreds of millions in just a few decades is a crime against humanity, change my mind.

in order to learn a language we have to buy a book and read it, so we did pay someone for our knowledge we then sell.

What if an artist got inspiration from a Google image search, without paying the creators for that? I think that's fine, and I don't see why it's suddenly wrong when a machine learning algorithm does it.

The original Facebook posts are included in this article:

https://m.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/beatrix-von-storch-afd-vizechefin-will-polizei-sogar-auf-kinder-schiessen-lassen-14044186.html#:~:text=Die%20Berliner%20AfD%2DChefin%20und,Frauen%20und%20Kinder%20schie%C3%9Fen%20lassen.