The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
well yes they say that if you remove animals from u.s gas u.s agriculture the greenhouse gas would be decreased but the problem is that that would create a food supply incapable of supporting the us's population's nutritional requirements so i can only imagine that this miniscule decrease in greenhouse gas contributions 1.9 percent is worth it to these people for complete nutritional and ecosystems collapse
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
if we wiped out all cattle from the united states they would produce less greenhouse gases but presumably we'd need more calories that would be nutrient poor calories to feed people and we would have to increase the agriculture so there is really no magical math that can happen here you can wipe out all of these cows in the united states that will reduce this 1.9 percent but presumably that's going to go over here to the agricultural crops which also produce greenhouse gases or into these other pigs chickens etc these other things which we're going to feed people
so if we wiped out all cattle from the planet they would produce less greenhouse gases let's start in the united states excuse me if we wiped out all cattle from the united states they would produce less greenhouse gases but presumably we'd need more calories that would be nutrient poor calories to feed