Animal welfare or climate change?
I had a conversation with a friend a few days ago, and we got to the question of whether animal welfare or stopping climate change was more important to us. What do you think? I told her climate change, and she firmly decided on animal welfare.
(2 rating, 2 votes, rated)You need to be a registered member to rate this.
Loading...
Global warming is especially good for plants. And increased plant growth is good for people and animals. Who is against climate change is also against animal welfare. Here are some facts about the problem you have addressed:
The Sahara has been greening for a few years.
https://www.fr.de/wissen/sahara-ergruent-at least-bisschen-13551679.html
Even in the north of the Sahara there is more and more rain (aside from normal fluctuations).
https://eike-klima-energie.eu/2024/04/30/die-gute-story-von-kamelen-von-der-klimaangst-generator-nicht-reden/
The increased rainfall in the Sahel naturally not only brings better harvests, but also new conflicts.
https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/hochwasser-in-kenia-if-das-wasser-alles- swallowt.979.de.html?dram:article_id=491511
and
And if it gets warmer and the ice melts on the North Pole, the Sahara could reappear.
https://www.n-tv.de/wissen/Kaeltere-Arktis-liess-Saharan-ausdry-article20121652.html
https://www.srf.ch/news/international/threatened-naturpaerke-in-kenia-mysterioeses-naturphaenomen-kenias-growing-seen
As little people (and animals) have never died through extreme weather conditions as in our time.
https://www.welt.de/debatte/komtare/article154608396/Irritating competition-between-Hitze-und-Kaeltetod.html
Not only the regions around the equator flourish, but the harvests in Canada and Russia are also getting better. Of course, you must not come to devils to rape nature, for example by removing groundwater and plants under foil or huge greenhouses. It's a long time.
Climate change is a natural process. In fact, practically all of them agree. Some simply think that it is accelerated by CO2 emissions. So what?
In principle, plants love CO2 and will thrive wild again. Everything remains in balance.
Would also decide for the welfare of animals, most dear with Climate change, because I welcome this. The earth can carry the good, the animals as well. You can withdraw from certain areas, that is all
man's artificial climate change is certainly not good at all, but there is a natural climate change this is much slower, so animals and plants can adapt, which is not possible with accelerated artificial climate change.
So neither is that what you write satire or you should be more involved with the topic
It's kind of human again. In my opinion, he would be responsible for everything and could even have a majority influence on the climate.
This big-minded thinking creates our own destruction. (:
Anointing words for a dying fauna and flora
That's so sad. But we all want to recover. After this cold time, a warmer came forward and it promises us to be more warmer dealing with each other (after the crises/crisis were challenged or hopefully transformed into a collective creativity)
Sura. For a long time it can no longer go (:
Stay optimistic
No
Luckily something we agree
Great. And he sets off his egoism, there is no desire to eradicate a species. Everything has the same value. Everything is a whim, an intention of nature. Of course, people can fight against nature (for this they have their consciousness), but that can be compared with a trotting phase, or perhaps more with puberty. Because rules do not harm the pupil. The pupil has to realize what his role is and how he finds true happiness.
the death of a few has no benefit and is useless and cruel, I am not a murderer and will not become it at first, the man has to abandon his egoism himself and then do what is the right, from then on self-suspulation is necessary I do not know
1) Why complete? You have at least one life you can take. If you don't get close to the welfare of people, many more.
2) Now, the difference is, you mean the influence of man is gigantic, and I think his influence is based on just a few percent
3) My body is human. This person has a brain in which ego is formed. But in principle, far from it, we are alive. Human incarnated life. Life remains. Life is an expression of nature. She (or we) has created man. He's ungrowing her, and my body produces cells. We are born out of nature itself.
4) lots of co2 = large plant growth. This is probably the case in turn; large animal growth. Like Dinosaurs' times, just keep with fewer lizards and more mammals. (well, it won't be so extreme, unfortunately, but that would be the (also healthy) extreme, which could create a stronger climate change again)
1) you have certain power in this regard. For example, your life. But also the other.
2) only that the majority thinks CO2 emissions would speed him up.
3) You have no idea what I am. is merely an incarnation of nature itself (as everything here). "I" remain, only this body with personality passes. We live with the consequences of our decisions.
Yes, nature conservation is important. But the problem is not CO2 itself. Politics speaks great to deprive the citizen of power
1) Positive for whom? Are you actively working on it when I can ask?
2) I mentioned in my answer. So what? Clearly, fast changes are rough. Quiet. The worst thing can happen would be 1 (what you support, and certainly not enter)
3) It's a typical person to interfere everywhere. That's why the world looks like it. I like to take responsibility for my actions. And if they should conjure climate change, I would like to meet him
I am responsible for dealing with humans, animals and nature.
Climate change is a wonderful phrase to justify new taxes, for example air tax, (no, that is CO2 tax) and a large relocation of financial resources from poor to kingdom and others.
They're not counters.
Industrial animal husbandry, always associated with animal suffering, is one of the largest climate changers.
I couldn't have formulated more concisely!