A new study published online today, April 25, in the scientific journal Science provides the strongest evidence to date that not only is nat
From the article:
“If you look only at the trend of species declines, it would be easy to think that we’re failing to protect biodiversity, but you would not be looking at the full picture,” said Penny Langhammer, lead author of the study and Executive Vice President of Re:wild. “What we show with this paper is that conservation is, in fact, working to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It is clear that conservation must be prioritized and receive significant additional resources and political support globally, while we simultaneously address the systemic drivers of biodiversity loss, such as unsustainable consumption and production.”
This massive meta analysis (for those not familiar, a study analyzing the results of many studies on similar topics) found that the vast majority of conservation efforts show much much better results than doing nothing. In many cases, biodiversity loss was not only stopped but reversed.
This shows that conservation efforts really work and money invested is put to very good use. Legally protecting endangered species really works, restoring habitat really works, removing invasive species really works, returning land to Indigenous communities works. All of the blood, sweat, and tears being poured into protecting the natural world has been making a real, big, tangible, difference on a global scale.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I do not agree with veganism as a moral standard. If it is your personal moral stance, that is fine. If you think humans eating meat is inherently immoral, I don’t want to deal with you, you’re hopeless. Vegan ideology behaves more like a sect of evangelical Christianity than a dietary choice.
Veganism is better for the environment, but claiming that it's a morally superior choice ignores cultural and economic factors that make people eat animal products.
It is not inherently better for the environment. That is the thing. When you begin trying to explain that local, sustainably sourced animal protein is better for the environment than imported plant proteins that are farmed 3,500 miles away using slave labor, they start tuning you out. Down is better for the environment than polyester stuffing, leather is better for the environment than pleather. We should work on making animal agricultural practices more sustainable instead of trying to shame everyone into eating plant products that are also farmed unethically and unsustainably.
Ok so I actually did the math on the first statement (local animal protein is better for the environment than imported plant based proteins).
I will be making a comparison between animal derived proteins (beef, poultry, and eggs) and plant based proteins (tofu and pulses)
First, I looked up the CO2-equivalents (CO2e)* emitted by producing 1kg of each protein source (Source), which yields the following results:
Beef: 498.9 kg CO2e
Poultry: 57 kg CO2e
Eggs: 42.1 kg CO2e
Tofu: 19.8 kg CO2e
Pulses: 8.4 kg CO2e
So we can see that plant-based proteins emit fewer greenhouse gasses than animal derived proteins.
Next, I looked at how transportation affects these numbers. I made the assumption that (1) no transportation is needed for the animal proteins and (2) the plant proteins are shipped from the other side of the world (so 20.000km). Shipping a kg of protein by freight ship at this distance emits about 0.6kg of CO2 equivalents (source)**.
So adding it up yields the following numbers***:
Beef: 498.9 kg CO2e + 0 kg CO2e from shipping = 498,9 kg CO2e
Poultry: 57 kg CO2e + 0 kg CO2e from shipping = 57 kg CO2e
Eggs: 42.1 kg CO2e + 0 kg CO2e from shipping = 42.1 kg CO2e
Tofu: 19.8 kg CO2e + 0.6 kg CO2e from shipping = 20.4 kg CO2e
Pulses: 8.4 kg CO2e + 0.6 kg CO2e from shipping = 9 kg CO2e
So even if we produce animal proteins locally and we ship all of our plant-based proteins halfway across the world, plant proteins are still far more environmentally friendly than animal proteins.
In other words, we can produce 55kg of pulse proteins, ship them 20.000km away and have the same environmental impact as producing 1kg of beef locally.
This is not even accounting for land use, water use, nitrate pollution, phosphate pollution etc., all of which have very real environmental impacts, and all of which are more present in the production of animal proteins****.
*CO2 equivalents is a way to combine the impact of all greenhouse gasses into a single number. So not just CO2, but also gasses like methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is about 30 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so 1kg of methane = 30 kg CO2 equivalents. The large amounts of methane produced by cows explains the high climate impact of beef relative to other meats.
**The calculations on this site are made assuming a 2kg parcel, so twice the weight I'm assuming my protein parcel to be. Considering how negligible the shipping emissions are compared to the production emissions, I did not bother to adjust these numbers.
***Overland shipping at this distance yields about 4.2 kg C02e. This is more than shipping by sea, but still fairly negligible compared to the CO2e emissions generated at the production stage.
****I've worked on this comment for like an hour now and I'm too lazy to look up sources for this statement. I hope I have been thorough enough in the rest of my comment to convince you that I am not pulling this out of my ass. Feel free to look it up yourself as well. I will be happy to correct this statement if you hit me with a source that proves me wrong.
i actually did the maths here, and slavery is still worse than sheep farming on every imaginable metric. And imaging a world where ONLY pulses are farmed, not rice or grains or let alone the more nitrate and fertiliser dependent crops, till doesn't make slavery and the exploitation of the global south to provide cheap crops sustainable or justifiable.
Are we seriously pretending that there are no human rights issues associated with animal agriculture now?
I'm sure the indigenous people in the Amazon whose homes are being burned down to create pastures and grow livestock feed would like to have a word
You are also ignoring that climate change by itself is a crime against humanity. Climate change. Which is caused by the emissions of greenhouse gasses. About 14% of which come from animal agriculture.
Also if you want to talk about the global south, don't forget to mention the tens of millions of people who will be displaced in the coming decades because of their homes becoming uninhabitable. Don't forget the people in the Himalayas and Andes whose water supplies depends on glaciers that are dwindling year by year. Don't forget the millions who will lose their livelihoods to droughts, floods and wildfires. Most of the people affected live, you guessed it, in the global south.
I just want to gently encourage you to read this article. Big corporations are spending a lot of money to orchestrate smear campaigns against the idea that eating less meat might actually be better for us. You don't need to be doing their work for them.
Eat-Lancet report recommended shift to more plant-based, climate-friendly diet but was extensively attacked online
Something I've not done
is following me
I haven't done it again and again
so it has many footsteps
like a drumstick that's grown old and never been used
In late afternoon I hear it come closer
at times it climbs out of a sea
onto my shoulders
and I shrug it off
losing one more chance
Every morning
it's drunk up part of my breath for the day
and knows which way
I'm going
and already it's not done there
But once more I say I'll lay hands on it
tomorrow
and add its footsteps to my heart
and its story to my regrets
and its silence to my compass
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
it's so fun for me every time this appears on my dash because not only did i walk past it irl several times, it's on what is widely considered the busiest bus route in europe
I do not agree with veganism as a moral standard. If it is your personal moral stance, that is fine. If you think humans eating meat is inherently immoral, I don’t want to deal with you, you’re hopeless. Vegan ideology behaves more like a sect of evangelical Christianity than a dietary choice.
Veganism is better for the environment, but claiming that it's a morally superior choice ignores cultural and economic factors that make people eat animal products.
It is not inherently better for the environment. That is the thing. When you begin trying to explain that local, sustainably sourced animal protein is better for the environment than imported plant proteins that are farmed 3,500 miles away using slave labor, they start tuning you out. Down is better for the environment than polyester stuffing, leather is better for the environment than pleather. We should work on making animal agricultural practices more sustainable instead of trying to shame everyone into eating plant products that are also farmed unethically and unsustainably.
Ok so I actually did the math on the first statement (local animal protein is better for the environment than imported plant based proteins).
I will be making a comparison between animal derived proteins (beef, poultry, and eggs) and plant based proteins (tofu and pulses)
First, I looked up the CO2-equivalents (CO2e)* emitted by producing 1kg of each protein source (Source), which yields the following results:
Beef: 498.9 kg CO2e
Poultry: 57 kg CO2e
Eggs: 42.1 kg CO2e
Tofu: 19.8 kg CO2e
Pulses: 8.4 kg CO2e
So we can see that plant-based proteins emit fewer greenhouse gasses than animal derived proteins.
Next, I looked at how transportation affects these numbers. I made the assumption that (1) no transportation is needed for the animal proteins and (2) the plant proteins are shipped from the other side of the world (so 20.000km). Shipping a kg of protein by freight ship at this distance emits about 0.6kg of CO2 equivalents (source)**.
So adding it up yields the following numbers***:
Beef: 498.9 kg CO2e + 0 kg CO2e from shipping = 498,9 kg CO2e
Poultry: 57 kg CO2e + 0 kg CO2e from shipping = 57 kg CO2e
Eggs: 42.1 kg CO2e + 0 kg CO2e from shipping = 42.1 kg CO2e
Tofu: 19.8 kg CO2e + 0.6 kg CO2e from shipping = 20.4 kg CO2e
Pulses: 8.4 kg CO2e + 0.6 kg CO2e from shipping = 9 kg CO2e
So even if we produce animal proteins locally and we ship all of our plant-based proteins halfway across the world, plant proteins are still far more environmentally friendly than animal proteins.
In other words, we can produce 55kg of pulse proteins, ship them 20.000km away and have the same environmental impact as producing 1kg of beef locally.
This is not even accounting for land use, water use, nitrate pollution, phosphate pollution etc., all of which have very real environmental impacts, and all of which are more present in the production of animal proteins****.
*CO2 equivalents is a way to combine the impact of all greenhouse gasses into a single number. So not just CO2, but also gasses like methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is about 30 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so 1kg of methane = 30 kg CO2 equivalents. The large amounts of methane produced by cows explains the high climate impact of beef relative to other meats.
**The calculations on this site are made assuming a 2kg parcel, so twice the weight I'm assuming my protein parcel to be. Considering how negligible the shipping emissions are compared to the production emissions, I did not bother to adjust these numbers.
***Overland shipping at this distance yields about 4.2 kg C02e. This is more than shipping by sea, but still fairly negligible compared to the CO2e emissions generated at the production stage.
****I've worked on this comment for like an hour now and I'm too lazy to look up sources for this statement. I hope I have been thorough enough in the rest of my comment to convince you that I am not pulling this out of my ass. Feel free to look it up yourself as well. I will be happy to correct this statement if you hit me with a source that proves me wrong.
i used to understand summer preferrers i used to see where they were coming from but frankly in 2026 its just an inexcusable position to hold. you think any of this is okay? you sicko?
you know you are really being very solipsistic and self-centred right now. the universe is vast and you are not the protgaonist of every story. have you considered that from some prespectives, the radiator is being handcuffed to you?
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I hate how 3 pm is so close to 2 pm so there's an illusion that there's still time left in the day to do things but in reality 3 pm is also close to 4 pm and if it's close to 4 pm you might as well just wait till tomorrow. <- can't argue against this by the way.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
