Yes a single blip where there was a 1% decrease in beef without a corresponding drop in GhG that in that same year they had a bunch of cows that were grown to maturity and then slaughtered.
I went a step further though I downloaded the CSV files and ran a correlation on them using excels CORREL function and they had a 0.98911 correlation
If you look at the two charts you listed they correlate very heavily with eachother
So ignoring the fact that English speaking is still not part of eugenics, do you think the only way it can be non eugenics based is if they shared those same sentiments to every country in every language in equal proportion? Or how else could they share the belief that having children is bad for the planet without it being eugenics based on your opinion?
So you are comparing a single year which had a 1% decrease in global beef consumption (1995 to 1996) and using that information to claim that beef doesn’t cause ghg?
That was not my question. Do you think the OP meant that only people who speak English should not have kids?
So are you interpreting the comment as only people who speak English should not have kids?
What was the reduction in beef consumption world wide compared to the reduction in ghg?
That is the classic problem of a correlation. If you are sitting in a room that is warm and you notice that when you are using your laptop the room is slightly warmer and when your laptop is off the room is slightly cooler would you say that the driving force for the temperature of the room is your laptop? Or could it also be the oven, the outside temperature, the heating/air conditioning, the number of people in the room, etc. we do have enough evidence that global air travel is a significant contributor to ghg and therefore climate change but it’s estimated to be 2.5% compared to agriculture which is 10%
It’s a manner of perspective, Coca Cola is considered one of the largest polluters on the planet but that’s not because corporate Coca Cola is out there polluting for funsies it’s because they make a product that individuals purchase and then individuals improperly dispose of. Sure no one person can stop Coca Cola from polluting but isn’t the pollution caused by your individual purchase your own responsibility?
Are you comparing that to a time that everyone stopped eating beef or how are you using that information to make the claim that meat isn’t the problem?
How is it eugenics if it has nothing to do with a parent’s genetic make up? Like if they said “meat eaters shouldn’t have kids” you could try and make an argument for eugenics but for nobody to have a kid or for everyone equally to have less children how is that eugenics?
Then you don’t get elected…
What I find funny is I have the exact opposite opinion that the left spends more time trying to appeal to voters than actually communicate what they are trying to do. So we end up with things like 250B to boost American manufacturing that got completely ignored
That’s why it’s important to be able to convey your message so people know what you are trying to accomplish with the 2000 page bill
People regularly vote against their own interests
And people could not purchase non biodegradable products