Weird that there's no mention of the melting permafrost as a methane source. I thought that was a well understood potential feedback loop for climate change.
> Potential drivers in the category of increased emissions include emissions from intensive agricultural practices, emissions from oil and gas operations, and increased emissions from wetlands responding to global warming. [This last potential driver is particularly worrisome as it implies the engagement of a global warming feedback loop.]
So maybe "wetlands" is a veiled reference to permafrost. Which in fact are basically frozen wetlands.
Never mind that cars, ships, agriculture ( I bet most of these vegans haven't ever heard of petrochemicals or fertilizers ), smartphones, electricity, etc are all individually greater contributors to environmental damage.
Also, the growing numbers of bison, deer and other ruminants around the world contributes to increase in methane levels. People forget that all ruminants ( bison, cows, etc ) all produce methane though they'll use the faux stat of them being net negative contributors.
And sad as it is, veganism will actually increase fossil fuel usage as the vegetation that people eat need petrochemical fertilizers to grow and a vegan diet cannot be locally sourced like meat can, so they need to ship vegan food from all over the world. But vegans don't like facts too much. They'll throw in the nonsense about livestock agriculture being transfered for humans. Good luck surviving on corn, soy and wheat. Humans aren't ruminants. We are omnivores by nature.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this argument (and I'm not a vegan). If we're not vegan, we're eating animal protein, and those animals making that protein are...vegan. We're ultimately all getting our protein from plants.
XKCD put up a well-sourced graphic depicting the relative amounts of mammal biomass on the Earth. Wild animals aren't anywhere remotely close to food animals.