All about Europe
My stance on this: ban all advertisement in public spaces except for: public events, cultural events, local independent businesses, messages of public interest.
Also, regulate signage. There is nothing that ruins my balcony view more than the big yellow M glowing all night long above all other buildings.
A ban on ... meat advertising in public spaces
Well. That's crazy.
Not really no. Meat is up there with fossil fuels in terms of how damaging it is to the planet and humans. Kind of a no brainer to try to reduce our overconsumption of it.
Wow... That's... Delusional.
Fossil fuels dominate. It's not even remotely close. Especially if you think about what leaded gas did to the boomers and the silent generation and gen X. And lead poisoning is something that tends to rub off on the next generation.
Meat farming requires plenty of fossil fuels too so you cant even strictly separate them.
Also it uses up a huge amount of farmland in really inefficient ways to feed the animals, which directly raises food prices.
Also it often poisons the groundwater.
Lots of effects other than just global warming.
But even if you conveniently ignore all that its still really bad in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
https://time.com/article/2026/04/21/meat-dairy-industry-sustainability-greenwashing-study/
The global livestock industry alone is one of the world’s highest emitting sectors, estimated to be responsible for between 12% and 19% of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
That is massive and solidly puts it in the category of "up there with fossil fuels"
Animal husbandry doesn't require fossil fuels. We've only been doing it for tens of thousands of years before fossil fuels were ever extracted or used. Separation achieved and it was easy.
Livestock is typically kept on marginal land that's unsuitable for most crops. If you manage livestock correctly you don't need to feed them anything, they'll go find their own food. If you're really smart you put them to work for you. This is something they call permaculture. Or regenerative farming.
No, again. If you know what you're doing then you are not going to be poisoning the groundwater.
Global warming is almost entirely due to fossil fuel usage. Again we were raising animals tens of thousands of years without any global warming. When did global warming start happening? When we started burning fossil fuels. Do you not understand this? Do you disagree?
And again tens of thousands of years we raised animals and (excessive) greenhouse gas emissions were not a problem. That started happening when we started burning fossil fuels. You seriously don't get this? Do you work for big oil or something? You can't be serious...?
I'm not sure what you don't understand? Is it the water cycle? Nitrogen cycles? Carbon cycles? Methane cycles? The difference between extracting things that were sequestered for hundreds of millions of years? Versus not doing that?!
Again, for tens of thousands of years all animals on Earth ate only what was on the surface of Earth. Fertilized with what's only on surface of the Earth. Whatever gases they burped out or farted or whatever.... They went into the atmosphere for a short while. Methane will react with hydroxyl radicals and turn into CO2 and water vapor over time(within a decade.) Which is plant food! Thus completing the cycle! Plants don't want Brawndo. They want to dig their roots into organic matter that's been broken down into rich soil, and they want some water and they want to inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen while enjoying a sun bath. Thus photosynthesis. Surely you follow?
Their pees and poops didn't accumulate because we didn't concentrate them in feed lots. Instead they'd walk around and they would spread that wonderful fertilizer without the human having to do any of that work themselves(and it is hard work). That's because we were good shepherds. We aren't good shepherds anymore... And for some of us I guess we forgot or we never knew any better. But that's a pretty shitty excuse because we have libraries and the internet and ultimately humanity does know better. It's just not as easy. It's not as convenient. It's not as exploitable in terms of capitaHELLism.
That's the problem with the world these days. You can't beat mother nature at her own game. But somehow you think you can?
So what's your solution to deal with all the livestock? Eating them is not the problem. Them existing would be the problem. So I guess your solution is to kill them all? Should they go fully extinct or do you want to keep a few around to put in a zoo?
When you dig up the sequestered remains of plants and animals that have died and accumulated over hundreds of millions of years and then we take that and then we burn about 100 million barrels of oil every single God damn day.... That was previously sequestered deep in mother Earth for hundreds of millions of years.... That's a 'cycle' that's going to take hundreds of millions of years to correct, potentially. That's a really really really really big problem.... Conservation of matter and energy, and all.
What are you even yapping about? All the things you wrote are irrelevant to this issue. What an insane comment copied straight from propaganda books.
All just hypothetical scenario bla bla while in practice the numbers are irrefutable. The following responses are not for you because you are clearly and idiot, but for others that might actually believe the bullshit you wrote.
Livestock is typically kept on marginal land that’s unsuitable for most crops.
Nonsense, but also the issue is actually the land required to grow the plants that feed the animals. The energy conversion rate of plants > animals > meat > food is incredibly inefficient compared to plants > food
If you know what you’re doing then you are not going to be poisoning the groundwater.
Well companies all over the world clearly dont give a shit about that so the point is irrelevant.
And again tens of thousands of years we raised animals and (excessive) greenhouse gas emissions were not a problem.
Because in 8000 BC there were an estimated 5 million humans in the world and a fraction of that in terms of livestock. Today there are 8+ billion humans and 30+ billion livestock animals globally if you include poultry.
Them existing would be the problem.
Yes, the amount of livestock humanity is keeping is not acceptable and needs to be reduced to a tiny fraction of the current levels. Without human interference these animals that we keep as livestock would never even have existed. If we stopped breeding them artificially they would cease existing in a matter of years. Realistically we wont and dont have to eradicate them, but we dont need billions of them.
When you dig up the sequestered remains of plants and animals [...]
Small note, but fossil fuels come almost entire from plants and microorganisms.
I can explain things to you. But I can't understand them for you.
Take LNG leaks. Just leaks. That's over 20 Tg(teragram) of methane into the wind every year. A teragram is 1 million metric tons. It takes 400 million cattle an entire year to produce that much methane (while feeding billions of people.)
Fossil fuels make up over 35 percent of methane emissions. Livestock are around 12 percent, and it's mostly cattle (ruminants.)
There's around 1.5 billion cattle and they produce about 75 million metric tons of CH4. Fossil fuels emit around 3x that much.
Eliminating fossil fuels would result in methane and CO2 concentrations dropping across the world. Climate change solved (at least as far as greenhouse gases.) While eliminating livestock production just slows down the rate of increase slightly, so it solves nothing except leaving you vulnerable to crop failures(which climate change will exacerbate) leading to famine and likely billions dead. Womp womp.
Ultimately, livestock are an excellent hedge. I do not understand why people want to make our food system less secure than it already is. To me, you are completely batshit fucking insane.
The world can sustain our present agriculture system without fossil fuels. It's as simple as that. We absolutely need to stop burning fossil fuels. It's as simple as that.
There's really no tug of war. Reducing livestock doesn't meaningfully change anything. It's like letting up slightly off the accelerator but you're still going 900 mph instead of a 1000 miles an hour directly into a brick wall. Eliminating fossil fuel combustion? That's like slamming on the brakes and shifting into reverse and then slamming on the accelerator....