LogFAQs > #961751143

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

This has always been an ignorant argument because it ignores the fact that those manufacturers only meet market demands. They don't exist in a vacuum and shouldn't be evaluated as though they do -- they pollute to precisely the extent that YOU demand that they do.

Nah, *your* argument has always been the ignorant one because it ignores the fact that those manufacturers don't have to meet market demands in the most wasteful way possible. Companies would rather throw away food than give any excess for free and yet they keep producing in great excess because we do not charge them for their waste.

Also, take methane emissions from cows, for an example of what's considered a problem. Simply incorporating seaweed in their diet would cut that down tremendously:
https://time.com/6119791/seaweed-cows-methane-emissions/

"In 2020 Australian researchers found that replacing 3% of a cows diet with a type of seaweed native to Australia resulted in up to an 80% decrease in methane emissions."