Veganism doesn’t have a case. Veganism is an animal rights movement pure and simple and therefore comes to any negotiations on the environment or diet etc. from a fixed position of no animal usage. The only “ism” that can be considered valid is “pragmatism”. If the advert on the bus would have stated “ You can’t be an environmentalist if you have more than one child” I might well have supported it.

Still a case for veganism.

IPCC figures are: 26% 0f GHGs from all agriculture, 14.5% from animal Ag, 11.5% from arable. Both figures include deforestation, processing, transport, farm machinery etc. 25 to 30% of arable is used for animal feed. Major problems with arable include: carbon release, nitrous oxide, ( up to 300 times warming potential of carbon with lifespan 110 yrs ). Although not directly related to GHGs further damage to the Biosphere occurs through the use of chemicals as well as toxic run-of, soil degradation etc. Therefore anyone claiming that a plant only diet is not ecologically damaging is wrong.

Please can you let me know the source of your information as I couldn’t find anything to substantiate this. My understanding is that a vast majority of food production is for animal feed anyway?