“also its not like they are banning cows, just finding more planet friendly ways to grow them”
The term “planet friendly” is meaningless. The planet will be here, no matter what humans do. Even if every nuclear weapon were set off at once. It might come close to ending all forms of life on the planet, but the planet would still exist. I doubt it would even be broken into chunks, like an asteroid belt. Not that I am in any way recommending such a thing.
In a similar way, there really is no “food waste,” either. Everything that can be food for some other organism on this planet will be food for some other organism, at some point.
In a sense, everything is natural, and everything comes from the earth, and will return to the earth. Yes, even your cell phone, TV, and computer are “natural,” in that sense. They came from the Earth, work with the laws of the universe, and will return to the Earth. In fact, they are still on the Earth when in use.
With all that said, there can certainly be better and more “environmentally friendly” ways to produce meat and milk and such. But it isn’t likely that the protocols suggested by institutions like the WEF, United Nations, investment firms like Blackrock, the EPA, or anything suggested under the arm of ESG is going to line up with an individual’s idea of “environmental friendliness.” The former are likely to favor consolidation of power, control and big business. Of course, it’s sold to the people as a loving idea of the individual and small farmers and protecting plants and animals and such. But I don’t think most of the former agenda lines up with the image painted for the public.
Author
