"Dutch politicians are considering plans to reduce livestock numbers... the highest Dutch administrative court found in 2019 that the government was breaking EU law by not doing enough to reduce excess nitrogen in vulnerable natural areas." 1/5 theguardian.com/environment/20…
This shows that making the link between animal agriculture, environmental damage and human rights violations is going to be critical moving forward. 2/5
This goes a lot deeper than 'failure to act' too. Governments are actively contributing to the harms of animal ag through subsidies, marketing campaigns, 'ag-gag' laws, de facto and de jure exemptions from regulation & discriminatory barriers for plant-based companies... 3/5
The EU itself is one of the worst offenders. It gives between 18% and 20% of its total annual budget to 'livestock' subsidies and pumps 10s of millions of Euros into meat marketing campaigns annually. 4/5
Reducing state support for animal agriculture - and re-directing it so plant-based and cellular alternatives - must become a key legal and political demand for climate justice! 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few thoughts about 'animal welfare' as a discourse. In the past my view was that, as a discourse, 'animal welfare' was historically a welcome departure from the earlier language of 'anti-cruelty'. THREAD
The reason I thought this was because 'anti-cruelty' discourse is often associated with the 'indirect duty' view that harming animals is only wrong in so far as it also harms humans (e.g. moral corruption etc.). Animal welfare, by contrast seems more directly animal focused.
Now, however, I am not so sure. Animal welfare discourse emerged in Britain in the 1960s, shortly after the publication of Ruth Harrison's 'Animal Machines' in 1964. This book exposed the institutional cruelty of industrial animal farming to the general public.