H. Environment, ecology and agriculture

14 arguments in Part IND.

Underlying question: Is veganism worse for the planet?
Dominant error: Empirical (selective data)

Family of indirect arguments

This argument is about the environment and agriculture, not whether animals deserve respect. Many activists question this kind of argument in defending animals, because it sidesteps what matters: no one defends the rights of people who face discrimination by saying that treating them fairly is good for the environment.

Why it is not good to use it, or why always to pair it with an ethical argument: If veganism were defended on environmental grounds, low-impact exploitation would be acceptable, even if it killed more sentient beings. And it is already being promoted: insect farming, "sustainable" hunting, "sustainable" leather. It is possible to reduce environmental impact and increase exploitation at the same time.

When used to justify exploitation, arguments like this one usually fail twice. They get the facts wrong, which often arrive distorted. And they get the morality wrong, because they leap from what is to what ought to be: even a real benefit would not show it is just to make someone suffer and die to obtain it.

So show the facts and correct what is wrong, but always come back to what matters: respect for animals and justice toward them. Learn why

H. Environment, ecology and agriculture

Vegans' soy is destroying the Amazon.

Harvests kill animals; vegans kill too.

Regenerative grazing sequesters carbon.

Cattle graze where crops can't grow.

Cow methane is biogenic; it doesn't count.

Avocados and almonds use a lot of water.

Imported vegan food pollutes in transport.

Local, organic meat is sustainable.

Agriculture can't work without manure.

Sustainable fishing and aquaculture solve it.

Hunting controls populations.

Livestock pollutes little; the problem is fossil fuels.

If meat is sustainable, there's no problem.

Eating insects is the sustainable protein of the future