I stopped eating meat five years ago and made the decision not to get a car. It's a start but it's not enough. I'd welcome the government forcing more change on me, but more importantly I want the government to encourage if not enforce change on a larger scale (like the EU banning old-school light bulbs some years ago), because that's what governments are there for. I can't do that on my own and the looming ecological disaster is too severe to sit back and hope that enough people will wake up before it's too late.
Centuries of fear-mongering by those warning of ecological disaster and yet we've experienced no global ecological disasters. But you want government forcing change despite many, many examples (within a century!) of that resulting in political, and subsequently human, catastrophe. You might want to think this through...
It simply isn’t true. That would have catastrophic effects on food supply and observed wildlife, and that hasn’t been the case at all. You’d see a drastic reduction in the population of game such as deer and bear and sport fish, but those populations thrive. I should see fewer snakes and birds and rabbits in my yard yet that hasn’t happened. So that tells me it’s nonsense.
As the article says, different species are affected differently. It's really not that hard to understand that you observing snakes and birds and rabbits in your yard doesn't disprove an extensive scientific study covering all kinds of natural habitats.
I would expect such a strong assertion to come with well laid out and persuasive reasoning. Maybe spoil me with relevant data (even second hand). Instead, you reject both premise and conclusion by some extremely weak heuristic, that has trouble even approximating reality in the first order.
