How is this conclusion reached exactly? I'm not saying it's false, it just seems like hyperbole on first impression.
For this reason basically.....
indisputably.
Raising livestock for meat, eggs and milk generates 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the second highest source of emissions and greater than all transportation combined. It also uses about 70% of agricultural land, and is one of the leading causes of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution.
Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...mental-impact-james-cameron-suzy-amis-cameron
And to everyone saying, "to hell with everyone else on the planet, I'm going to do what I want and eat 50 steaks a day because I can!" go on then. Saying such things doesn't make you clever, its not like youre going to follow through on it, your health will suffer and its just as obnoxious as a militant vegan jumping down your throat about eating a burger from time to time.
I also don't see why eating meat always seems like some god given right which stands above all others. No one burns tyres or all their plastic waste in their back garden, just because they can. Most people don't leave their engine running all the time, just because they can. I imagine this is partly because there is an economic and environmental cost to these things. Well eating meat all the time is no different. No one needs to eat meat for every meal, and the only reason to do so seems to be a lack of imagination and habit. Ultimately its more expensive than veggie only meals, worse for your health, worse for the environment, worse for animal welfare, worse for a lot of reasons. Really there is no problem with having meat from time to time, but all the time is unnecessary and damaging. This campaign is just raising awareness of the costs of dairy and egg production (which are horrendous by the way).
No one is taking your steak away, but if everyone just ate a little less meat, eggs and milk products, then everyone else would be all the better for it.