面对密集型畜牧业造成的环境影响，何为最佳应对方式？
瑞士公民选择与绝大多数农民站在同一阵营，向一项由反物种主义者和动物权益保护组织提议的“集约化养殖”动议说“不”。
在投票之前的数月里，为该动议奔走的活动人士主张这一提案能为牲畜和家禽赋予尊严，并助力瑞士农业更好地适应全球应对气候变化的斗争。
在瑞士农民联盟(Swiss Farmers’ Federation)的领导下，大多数农民对他们认为对自身不公抨击的观点予以坚决反击。因为在他们看来，所有这些批评和攻击均以实现减少肉类消费这一宽泛的社会目标为名义，却对他们的利益造成了损害。
您是否认同这一公投结果？在您看来，动物养殖业与环境影响之间存在必然联系吗？为什么存在？为什么不存在？还有其他解决方案吗？
阅读文章 2022年9月25日瑞士全民投票结果
建议吃蔬菜而不是肉。
这将减少负担，对我们的健康更有利。
肉を食べる代わりに野菜を食べることを提案する。
そのほうが負荷が少ないし、我々の健康にもいいと思う。
对那些必须立即解决的问题，农业和环境优先。
A problemas que devem ter soluções de imediato, a agricultura e o meio ambiente prioridade.
应对密集型动物养殖业对环境影响的最好方法是尽一切努力减少对其产出的需求。
人们可以发现和学习更多关于食物、食物链、享受真正的食物，以及食物和一起分享食物是如何成为减少压力、促进健康和培养关系的文化的一部分。
当所有的垃圾食品消费者再次清楚地认识到这一点时，对密集型动物养殖的需求就会下降，农民会认为可持续养殖是一种更可行的商业模式。
政府在这方面的作用是：使集约化养殖产品的出口更加困难或更加昂贵，并开展适当的宣传活动，以告知消费者，正如我上面所描绘的那样。人们已经忘记了吃饭的功能是什么，忘记了准备自己的饭菜，也忘记了分享它们。
The best way to combat the environmental impact of intensive animal farming is to do everything to reduce the demand for its output.
People could discover and learn more about food, the food chain, enjoying real food, and how food and sharing it together is part of a culture that reduces stress, promotes health, and fosters relationships.
When that becomes clear again to all the junk food consumers, demand for intensive animal farming goes down and farmers will consider sustainable farming a more viable business model.
There is a role for the government here: making export of intensively-farmed products more difficult or more expensive, and running proper campains to inform consumers as I map out above. People have forgotten what the function is of eating, of preparing your own meals, and of sharing them.
每个人都想回归自然，但没有人愿意步行去做。
Todo el mundo quiere volver a la naturaleza, pero nadie quiere hacerlo a pie
我想说的是，所提出的问题是相当笼统的，而答案是非常广泛的，涵盖了从动物健康到我们摄入的东西的几个方面。撇开人类健康方面不谈，我想把重点放在动物福利上，这是我比较熟悉的方面。因此，任何决定饲养动物的人都必须对动物的伦理学有深刻的了解，以便根据物种的需要（自由、关系生活、卫生、生殖生活、游戏）建立一个能够尊重动物天性的模式，而这种条件在结构上是不可能在集约化养殖中得到尊重的。事实上，工业化畜牧业代表了人类管理的养殖系统，从驯化到今天，已经使动物尽可能地远离了它的原始自然。在群体中建立等级制度对空间的需求，反刍动物对吃草的需求或猪对扎根的需求，都是与生俱来的行为，必须得到尊重。
Direi il quesito formulato abbastanza generico e la risposta è molto ampia e riguarda diversi aspetti dalla salute degli animali fino a ciò che ingeriamo. Tralasciando l’aspetto della salute umana mi concentrerei sul benessere degli animali aspetto che sono più afferrato. Qualsiasi persona che decida di allevare animali deve, dunque, conoscerne profondamente l’etologia, in maniera da impostare un allevamento basato sulle esigenze di specie (di libertà, di vita di relazione, di igiene, di vita riproduttiva, di gioco) creando un modello che possa rispettare la natura animale, condizione che negli allevamenti intensivi non è strutturalmente possibile rispettare. Infatti, l’allevamento industriale rappresenta il sistema di allevamento gestito dall’uomo che, dalla domesticazione a oggi, ha portato l’animale il più lontano possibile dalla sua natura originaria. La necessità di spazio per stabilire la gerarchia all’interno del gruppo, il bisogno di pascolare per un ruminante o di grufolare per un suino, sono comportamenti innati e devono essere rispettati, sono imprescindibili per la salute.
你的问题是以一种特殊的、相当笼统的方式提出的。答案只能是一个。显而易见，是的。A 是的，但是。
每一项人类活动都会对环境产生影响。这个问题太复杂了，不可能在一篇简短的新闻报道中涵盖。有太多的因素促成。全球和区域范围内的人口趋势，独立于气候现象的自然事件，各个层面的气候事件本身，全球化的经济，各国的政策，等等。
一些干预措施已经触及了这些影响因素中的一个或另一个。
回到这个问题上，投票结果反映了投票公民的几种感受。一方面，对一个高度发达的系统（我们的瑞士农业）的不断攻击导致了人们的气愤。一方面，人们对健康农业的认识，与瑞士提倡的集约化农业有根本的不同。尤其是选票上的文字措辞错误。被歪曲的中心目标是无法辩护的。由活动家推动的运动，没有论据，没有个性，与组织良好的武装军队发生了冲突，后者能够创造共识，瓦解了激励反对派的脆弱尝试。
La sua domanda è formulata in modo particolare, piuttosto genericamente. La risposta può essere solo una. Evidentemente SI. Un SI, MA.
Ogni attività umana ha impatto sull'ambiente. Il tema è troppo complessa da trattare in un breve articolo giornalistico. Contribuiscono troppi fattori. L'evoluzione della popolazione sia su scala globale che regionale, gli eventi naturali indipendenti dai fenomeni climatici, gli stessi eventi climatici a tutti i livelli, l'economia globalizzata, le politiche dei paesi ecc.
Più interventi hanno già toccato l'uno o l'altro dei fattori di influenza.
Per tornare alla domanda, il risultato del voto riflette più sensazioni del cittadino votante. Da un lato i continui attacchi ad un sistema estremamente evoluto (la nostra agricoltura svizzera) ha portato all'esasperazione. Da un lato la percezione di un allevamento sano, fondamentalmente differente da quello intensivo promosso dalla Svizzera. Non da ultimo la sbagliata formulazione del testo in votazione. L'obiettivo centrale, snaturato, era indifendibile. La campagna promossa dagli inziativisti, senza argomentazioni, senza personalità, ha cozzato contro un esercito ben organizzato e armato, che ha saputo creare consenso e smontare fragili tentativi di motivare il NO.
创新的解决方案，瑞士有奶牛和更多的山地景观作为它的特产和旅游品牌战略，因此，对瑞士来说，开始一个经济上友好的耕作方法更为重要。
Innovative solution, Swiss has cows and more mountainous landscapes as it’s specialties and tourism branding strategy hence it’s more important for Swiss to start an economically friend method for farming.
我认为我们在这里关注的是错误的一面。在耕种之前，我们应该看看所有的工厂，它们不仅向海洋释放二氧化碳，而且还释放有毒的化学物质。海洋是很大的二氧化碳吸收器。更不用说森林了。让我们首先清除垃圾食品工厂，烟草工厂。让我们制造更多的耐用产品，就像我们在80年代的产品。还记得我们可以永远使用同一辆车的日子吗？或者同一条牛仔裤？快时尚、快节奏的行业是那些破坏环境的行业，而不是耕作。
I think we are focusing on the wrong side here. Before farming we shall look at all the factories which release not only CO2 but also toxic chemicals into the oceans. Oceans are big CO2 absorbers. Not to mention forests. Let’s first remove junk food factories, tobacco factories. Lets make more durable products, like those we had in the 80’s. Remember the days when we could use the same car forever? Or the same Jeans? Fast fashion, fast paced industries are those destroying the environment and not farming.
正是如此!
Exactly!
人口稠密的动物养殖场的最大问题是甲烷气体的产生，其对气候的危害超过了二氧化碳。但是，如果集约化动物生产农场支持绿色能源项目和甲烷气生产（天然气）以及不使用化学品的有机农业，我们可以将这种劣势视为主要优势。
المشكلة الكبيرة في مزارع الحيوانات الكثيفة هي إنتاج غاز الميثان الذي يفوق ثاني أكسيد الكربون في خطورته على المناخ لكن من الممكن أن نعتبر هذا العيب ميزة كبرى لو دعمت مزارع الإنتاج الحيواني المكثف مشروعات الطاقة الخضراء وإنتاج غاز الميثان (الغاز الطبيعي) ودعمت كذلك الزراعة العضوية بدون كيماويات.
你不能限制它......因为现在的可持续发展措施指出，它显然和客观上不利于气候变化的整体增加
Non si può limitare...perchè le misure di Sostenibilità lo danno ormai per dichiaratamente ed oggettivamente dannoso ai fini complessivi dell'incremento di Climate Change
这是很好的答案，农业是提高食物质量和人口数量的好目标，没有农业就没有食物的生活方式。
ho that's good answer and farming is good objective for increase food quality and measure of population and there is no farming no food for lifestyle
瑞士农业对全球环境的影响是相当微不足道的（！），特别是在二氧化碳的排放方面。这也是为什么民众不再允许自己被这一领域的绿色环保主义的宣传所误导。
在畜牧业方面，我们已经是对地球最友好的国家之一，因为密集型的畜牧业农场甚至无法与国外那些规模更大、不尊重动物的农场相比。
继续敲打瑞士农业不环保的精神/意识形态的钉子（？）只会增加农民和消费者的不满情绪！这是不可能的。现在是时候关注其他更糟糕的问题了，比如明显过度的道路交通和荒谬的土地投机，以及过度的二级住宅与 "冷床"。
L'impatto dell'agricoltura svizzera sull'ambiente globale è del tutto trascurabile (!) soprattutto per le emissioni di Co2. È anche per questo che la popolazione non si lascia più irretire dalla martellante propaganda verde-ambientalista in quest'ambito.
Riguardo all'allevamento del bestiame siamo già uno dei paesi più rispettosi della Terra, in quanto gli allevamenti intensivi non sono nemmeno paragonabili a quelli dell'estero molto più grossi e irrispettosi degli animali.
Continuare a battere sul chiodo - mentale/ideologico - che la Svizzera avrebbe un agricoltura poco rispettabile dell'ambiente (?) non fa che accrescere il malumore, sia degli agricoltori, sia dei consumatori ! Sarebbe ora di concentrarsi su altre tematiche ben peggiori, come il traffico stradale manifestamente eccessivo e la speculazione fondiaria assurda nonché le residenze secondarie eccessive con "letti freddi".
第一步--投反对票。但在农民的土地上，我期待着投反对票。
Step 1 - Vote against it. But in the land of farmers, I expected a no vote.
有趣的是，瑞士侨民投票支持这一倡议。[url=http://https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-diaspora-more-supportive-of-pension-reform-and-animal-welfare/47931040?utm_campaign=teaser-in-channel&utm_medium=display&utm_content=o&utm_source=swissinfoch] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-diaspora-more-supportive-of-pension-reform-and-animal-welfare/47931040?utm_campaign=teaser-in-channel&utm_medium=display&utm_content=o&utm_source=swissinfoch%5B/url%5D
Interestingly Swiss Abroad voted for this initiative.[url=http://https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-diaspora-more-supportive-of-pension-reform-and-animal-welfare/47931040?utm_campaign=teaser-in-channel&utm_medium=display&utm_content=o&utm_source=swissinfoch] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-diaspora-more-supportive-of-pension-reform-and-animal-welfare/47931040?utm_campaign=teaser-in-channel&utm_medium=display&utm_content=o&utm_source=swissinfoch[/url]
相反，它没有被投票 "反对"，因为瑞士人的意识形态（！）偏差比人们想象的要少得多。必须支持和尊重尚存的农民的工作：而不是总是被那些在办公室工作的人投反对票，他们的工资有保障，假期也有保障！"。
Invece non fu votato "contro", perché il popolo svizzero è molto meno deviato ideologicamente (!) di quanto si pensi. Il lavoro degli agricoltori ancora rimasti, va sostenuto e rispettato: altro che votare sempre contro da parte di gente che lavora in ufficio coi piedi al caldo, la paga sicura e le ferie garantite!
我经常觉得我的投票是浪费的，因为我住在Farmerville。他们的逻辑似乎是 "这将花费我多少钱？"而我的逻辑是 "这给大家带来什么好处？"。 看来拯救地球并不是他们的首要任务。也许海外的瑞士人已经看到了更多的全球影响。在这里，我们仍然有河流、湖泊、树木、绿地，即使冰川正在消失，山上也有雪。瑞士本地的投票不会改变，直到我们生活在沙漠中，那时就太晚了。
I often feel my vote is a wasted one, as I live in Farmerville. Their logic seems to be "how much will it cost me?" while mine is "what benefit does it bring to everyone?". It seems saving the planet is not top of their agenda. Maybe the Swiss Abroad have seen a more global impact. Here, we still have rivers, lakes, trees, green fields, snow in the mountains even if the glaciers are vanishing. The local Swiss vote won't change until we live in a desert, when it's too late.
瑞士错过了一个结束条件的历史性机会，在那里。
-小鸡在烤箱里的空间比它们短暂的悲惨生活中的空间还要大：即一张A4纸。
-10头猪存在于一个停车位的空间里，其中一半的猪从未接触过户外，也没有稻草可以躺在上面。
-10只动物中的9只在被宰杀前从未见过头顶的天空。
我可以继续说下去。
农场主有25年的时间来过渡，而且会受到进口禁令的保护。
1,062,647人投票支持农场动物，支持在瑞士结束工厂化养殖。
尽管不足以赢得投票，但密集的运动和媒体报道确保了这一问题出现在每个餐桌上。
零售商是时候将海德兰的形象与现实结合起来，利用他们的市场支配地位和权力来支持动物福利，结束他们在动物标签产品上享受的可怕的高额利润。行动比语言更有说服力。
这个话题是不会消失的。
让我们继续努力，在这个基础上，结束工厂化养殖，在我们的食品系统中进行系统性的变革，让动物、环境和这一愿景的守护者得到尊重，并能真正茁壮成长。
Switzerland missed an historic opportunity to end conditions where:
-chickens have more room in the oven than during their short sad lives: ie one A4 sheet of paper.
-10 pigs exist in the space of one parking space, half of them never have access outdoors or have straw to lie on
-9 out of 10 animals never see the sky above until the day they are slaughtered.
I could go on.
The Farmers had 25 years to transition and would have been protected by import bans.
1’062’647 People voted for the farm animals, for an end to factory farming in Switzerland.
Despite not being enough to win the vote, the intensive campaign and media coverage ensured that this issue was on every dining table.
Time for the Retailers to match the Heideland images with reality by using their market dominance and power to support animal welfare and end the horrendously high margins they enjoy on animal label products. Actions speak louder than words.
This topic is not going away.
Let’s all keep pushing and build on this foundation for an end to factory farming, for a systemic change in our food systems where animals, the environment and the custodians of this vision are respected and can truly thrive.
现实是，人们可以像我一样，选择购买和食用自由放养的有机鸡。成本在15-20法郎左右，可能更高。
低收入的人无法支付如此高的肉价，也无法负担昂贵的肉类替代品，而这些替代品又是高度加工的食品。
因此，为了获得良好的营养和体力，必须有一系列成本较低的肉类可供选择。
你说 "本来可以通过进口禁令来保护"。
这是不可能的，欧盟和世贸组织都不允许这样做，巴西也不允许，瑞士从那里购买了很多鸡。根据一般贸易协定，不允许像这样阻止特定的进口。
价格较低的鸡在瑞士饲养，条件较好，比便宜的进口鸡更好。
The reality is that people can, like myself, choose to buy and eat free range, organic chickens. The cost is in the region of 15-20 Francs, can be higher.
People on low incomes cannot afford to pay such a high price for meat, nor can they afford the expensive meat alternatives, which incidentally are highly processed foods.
Therefore, for good nutrition, and strength, there must be a range of lower cost meats available.
You comment of "would have been protected by import bans."
This is not possible, the EU nor WTO would not allow this, nor would Brazil, from where Switzerland buys many chickens. It's not allowed under general trade agreements to block specific imports like this.
It's better for lower price chickens to be reared in Switzerland, under better conditions, than cheaper imports.
我们能不能开始更好地确定优先次序？把所有的垃圾食品厂、烟草和制糖业清除掉呢。它们每年造成数百万人死亡和慢性病。还有快速时尚和快速的一切，用耐用的产品取代，就像我们在80年代的产品。去年我从Zara买了一条牛仔裤。它们持续了两次洗涤。纯粹是垃圾。我更喜欢昂贵的Levis，可以持续几年。技术和一切都一样。我们现在每5年换一次车。所有这些都是污染，二氧化碳和大量的垃圾。塑料呢？我们现在买4个苹果都是用纸盒和塑料包装的？有人注意到这一点吗？如果这些还不足以改善现状，那么我们可以讨论一下肉类、水果和蔬菜等基本要素。在目前的情况下，把肉类放在第一线，显然与环境无关，而只是另一个商业领域。
Can we start prioritizing a bit better?. What about removing all the junk food factories, tobacco and sugar industries. They cause millions of deaths and chronic illnesses every year. Also the fast fashion and fast everything, replace with durable products, like those we had in the 80s. Last year I bought a pair of jeans from Zara. They lasted two washings. Pure junk. I prefer expensive Levis that can last for few years. Same with technology amd everything. We change car every 5 years now. All this is pollution, CO2 and an immense amount of trash. And plastic? We buy 4 apples now wrapped in paper box and plastic? Does anybody notice this? Soo If this is not enough to improve the situation then we can discuss about basics like meat, fruits and vegetables. Putting into the frontline meat in the current circumstances obviously has nothing to do with the environment but with just another business segment.
你好，ANONA，我同意有很多部分对环境有（或大或小的）影响。我也看到，比如说塑料包装，对我们的环境造成了巨大的污染。
在瑞士对 "工厂化养殖 "倡议进行投票前的几周，有一些声音呼吁禁止这种养殖方式，因为他们认为这与环境问题有关联。
我现在想知道，你认为有什么方法可以解决这些问题吗？
我在你的文章中也看到了一种联系。快餐和 "随意丢弃 "的生活方式。对于优先考虑可持续来源的肉类，例如来自当地农民的肉类，你会怎么说？
Hello ANONA, I agree that there are many parts that have (a bigger or smaller) environmental impact. I also see that plastic wrappings, for example, result in a massive pollution of our environment.
In the weeks before the vote on the "factory farming" initiative in Switzerland there were voices that were calling for a ban of this way of farming because they see a connection between this and environmental concerns.
I am wondering now, do you see ways that would address these concerns?
I see a connection here in your contribution as well. The fast food and "throw-away" style of life. What would you say to prioritising sustainably sourced meat, e.g. from local farmers?
说得好：现在是时候停止总是挑剔瑞士农民了，他们现在被系统性的、毫无道理的怀疑所激怒了。你想扼杀我们仅存的农业？
继续激怒农业世界，你很快就会被迫吃到来自亚洲的鸡和鸡蛋！"。不仅如此，还有外国的奶粉，因为没有瑞士的牛奶！"。
人们已经厌倦了这些歇斯底里的绿色运动!
Ben detto: è ora di smetterla di prendersela sempre contro gli agricoltori svizzeri che ormai sono esasperati dal cima del sospetto sistematico e ingiustificato nei loro confronti. Volete uccidere quel che rimane della nostra agricoltura?
Continuate pure a esasperare il mondo contadino, che presto vi vedrete costretti a mangiare polli e uova provenienti dall'Asia! Non solo: ma anche del latte estero in polvere, mancando quello svizzero!
La gente è ormai arcistufa di queste campagne color verde-isterico!
我认为，在我们攻击破坏环境的真正因素之前，我们甚至不应该考虑破坏或限制基本的东西。我担心这只是把我们的食物交到富人公司手中的另一个策略。那还有什么选择呢，素食主义者？这是另一个行业，它将用高度加工的食品来更多地破坏这个星球。在我带领农民和他的家庭破产之前，我将确保所有非必要的工厂被关闭，所有其余的公司清理他们在海洋、河流、湖泊和森林的垃圾。二氧化碳不是问题，而是地球缺乏资源来回收它。 海洋和森林是一个主要的二氧化碳吸收者，它们大多被大公司破坏，这些公司通过化学品和垃圾遍地。与此相比，农场动物做了什么，只是放屁和拉屎。这就是全部。我相信整个人类需要更多关于自然界运作的教育。如此多的人指出养殖业是可怕的，因为这种无知使我们容易受到任何形式的操纵和剥削。让我们拿起一些书，让我们访问一些农民，他们比我们更了解生活的运作。
I think that we should not even think about destroying or limiting the basics before we have attacked the real contributors to the destruction of the environment. I am afraid that this is just another strategy to put our food in the hands of wealthy corporations. What is the alternative then, vegan? This is another industry which will destroy even more the planet with highly processed foods. Before I lead a farmer and his family to go bankrupt I will ensure that all the non essential factories are closed and that all the rest of corporations clean up their garbage from the oceans, rivers, lakes and forests. CO2 is not the problem but the lack of resources the planet has to recycle it. Oceans and forests are a major CO2 absorbers which are mostly destroyed by big corporations that through chemicals and trash all over. What does farm animals do compared to that, just fart and poop. Thats all. I believe that the entire human population need more education about how nature works. The fact that so many people point out farming is scary because this ignorance makes us vulnerable to any sort of manipulation and exploitation. Let’s grab some books people, lets visit some farmers, they know how life works better than we do.
老实说，我认为瑞士是全球变暖的最小担忧。我是认真的。如果中国和美国继续以这种速度发展，在瑞士做任何事情都不会有任何区别。这正是我的观点，这里有错误的优先事项，这将导致错误的决定和行动。我们决不能触及瑞士的农业和养殖业。我们可以没有巧克力和薯片，甚至没有谷类食品。但我们不能没有水果、蔬菜和肉类。这些是迄今为止营养最丰富的食物，加工程度较低，最自然和最健康。
I honestly think that Switzerland is the least of the global warming concerns. Seriously. It will not make any difference doing anything more in Switzerland if China and the US continue at that pace. This is exactly my point, wrong priorities here which will lead to wrong decisions and actions. We must not touch farming and agriculture in Switzerland. We can live without chocolate and chips potatoes and even without cereals. But we cannot live without fruits, vegetables and meat. These are by far the most nutritionally dense foods, the less processed, most natural and healthiest.
自2996年联合国报告（粮农组织）以来。
"畜牧业的漫长阴影"，很明显，气候变化的主要来源是什么。但在每一次联合国会议上，这一点从一开始就被排除在外。现在，大自然开始反击，未来会有结果。 多年来，人们都知道这一点。人种下什么，就会收获什么。 而结果对许多人来说将是非常、非常残酷的。
Seit dem 2996 erschienen Un- Bericht (FAO) .
"Livestock's Long Shadow" ist es klar, wo die Hauptquelle des Klimawandels ist. Diese wird aber bei jeder UNO-Konferenz zum vornherein ausgeklammert. Nun beginnt sich die Natur zu wehren und die Zukunft wird es zeigen. Seit vielen Jahren ist es bekannt: Was der Mensch säet, das wird es ernten. Und das Resultat wird für viele sehr, sehr grausam sein.
当政府停止补贴动物产业时，当消费者开始支付肉类、奶类和蛋类的真实成本时，那么大多数人就会选择吃素。
When governments stop subsidizing the animal industries, when consumers start paying the true costs of meat, dairy, and eggs, then most people will make the choice to go vegetarian.
你好，NICK KYRIAZI，感谢你的意见。你说的 "真实成本 "到底是什么意思？
Hello NICK KYRIAZI, thank you for your input. What do you mean by "true cost" exactly?
我永远不会成为素食主义者。这对我来说是不健康的。但是我们可以通过简单地清理我们的垃圾和停止生产垃圾来拯救地球。难道你没有意识到，现在的矛头已经指向了肉类行业，因为有一个价值数十亿的素食产品行业正等待着被推出？
I will never be vegan. It is not healthy for me. But the planet we can save by simply cleaning up our trash and stop producing junk. Don’t you realize that the finger is now pointing the meat industry because there is a long like of multi billion value vegan products industry waiting to be launched?
畜牧业和粮食种植业是相互交织的，这是一种生活方式。一个取决于另一个。如果你能看一下Soil4climate和再生农业，并做一下比较，我将非常感激。了解彼此之间的依赖关系并不是什么火箭科学。
It's a lifecyle that both Animal farming and Food farming are intertwined. One depends on the other. Would well appreciate if you would look at Soil4climate and the Regenerative Agriculture and do the comparisons. Its no rocket science to understand the dependancy of each other.
更大......更快......更多......只会产生更多问题，损害我们的环境。这种对任何东西的持续大规模生产都不是好兆头。
Bigger...faster...more of it...only creates more problems which harm our environment. This constant mass production of just about anything can't bode well.
你好，VERAGOTTLIEB，你认为现实的解决方案可以是什么？
Hi VERAGOTTLIEB, what do you think realistic solutions could be?
我们在自己的 "一切 "中窒息了--我们已经达到了不归路。但这并不意味着我们放弃了保持我们的星球宜居的努力。西方（白人）世界已经不知道什么是不浪费，相反，我们通过将我们的集体垃圾倾倒在第三世界国家来 "清理"......并向他们付费，这样我们的良心就不会受到太多伤害。在我看来，造成这一切的一个重要原因是杀戮性的资本主义，它没有任何限制。
We are suffocating in our own 'everything' - we have reached the point of no return. But this shouldn't mean that we give up still trying to keep our planet livable. The Western (white) world doesn't know anymore what it means not to waste, instead we 'clean up' by dumping our collective garbage on Third World countries...and pay them so our conscience doesn't hurt too much. As I see it, a big contributor to all this is also KILLER KAPITALISM which knows no limits.
在过去的十年里，生态极端主义者以某种方式说服了社会的大部分人，认为所有的环境问题都是个人造成的，他/她必须减少肉类、飞行，等等。
吃肉并不是最大的环境问题，飞行也不是。浪费食物、工业、公路运输，比吃肉或飞行排放更多的二氧化碳。
肉类是一种非常紧凑、能量和营养丰富的食物。它对人类的好处大于坏处。
In the past decade the eco-extremists have somehow convinced large parts of society that the individual is to blame for all environmental problems, that he/she must cut down on meat, flying, etc.
Eating meat isn't the biggest environmental issue, neither is flying. Wasting food, industry, road transport, emit more CO2 than meat eating or flying.
Meat is a very compact, energy and nutrient rich food. It's benefits to humanity outweight the downsides.
我喜欢这个帖子，我同意 "浪费 "是最大的敌人。
在一个提供 "所有你能吃的 "自助餐的现代餐厅里，如果一个人拿了食物却没有吃（浪费），会有金钱上的惩罚。 为什么我们不能在超市和餐馆实施这样的策略？因为我们很懒惰。
I like this post and I agree that WASTAGE is the worst enemy.
In a modern restaurant serving "all you can eat" buffet, there are monetary penalties when one takes the food and does not eat it (waste). Why we cannot implement such a strategy to supermarkets and restaurants? Because we are lazy.
只要走进任何一家超市。你会发现货架上80%的东西都是垃圾（糖果、薯片土豆、含有大量糖分的谷物、更多的精制碳水化合物和更多的包装的Jink食品）。除此以外，还有沙发、酒精、烟草和各种没有人需要但我们因为无聊而购买的物品。现在计算一下对环境的破坏。如果我们消除所有这些，我们将消除环境问题。肉类是最天然的食物来源，将其纳入污染原因的行列，只意味着素食行业有大量的资金在其中，这只会带来更多的污染和垃圾。不要上当受骗。政府和企业特别不关心你的健康，也不关心环境。
Just walk into any supermarket. You will observe that 80% of what is on the shelves is junk (candies, chips potatoes, cereals with lots of sugar, more refined carbohydrates and more packed jink food). Apart from that take sofas, alcohol, tobacco and all sorts of objects that nobody needs but we buy because we are bored. Now calculate the environmental damage. If we remove all that we will eliminate the problem woth the environment. Meat is the most natural food source and putting it into the line of cause for pollution only means that there is a lot of money at the stake from the vegan industry, which will only bring more pollution and junk. Don’t fall for this. Governments, Corporations specially do not care about your health neither the environment.
关于肉类和奶制品的一些令人清醒的事实。
根据联合国粮食及农业组织（FAO）的数据，全世界有14.5%的温室气体排放来自畜牧业。
根据Agroscope的数据，目前在瑞士，平均每个居民每年仅为食物就排放了约2吨二氧化碳当量。
根据GRAIN和农业与贸易研究所2018年的一份报告，世界五大肉类和乳制品公司每年的温室气体排放量已经超过了埃克森、壳牌或英国石油公司。
从二氧化碳零目标的角度和生物多样性的角度来看，目前和预期的肉类生产所产生的温室气体排放是不可持续的。
因此，粮农组织、"柳叶刀 "研究和多项科学研究提出了紧急建议，要求大幅减少肉类消费，支持更加平衡和健康地增加植物性饮食。
该倡议肯定会对这一解决方案做出贡献。
它将有助于满足对更加可持续和人性化的畜牧业的需求。
它将通过禁止进口不符合新标准的产品来保护农民，并为他们提供一个25年的过渡期。
瑞士错过了一个机会，但我毫不怀疑，气候变化的压力和肉类替代品的兴起将使我们走上这条路。
Some sobering facts regarding meat and dairy:
Worldwide, 14.5 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock farming, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
According to Agroscope, in Switzerland today an average of about two tonnes of CO2 equivalent are emitted per year and per inhabitant for food alone.
According to a 2018 report by GRAIN and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade, together, the world’s top five meat and dairy corporations were already responsible for more annual greenhouse gas emissions than Exxon, Shell or BP.
The current and anticipated greenhouse gas emissions stemming from meat production is not sustainable from a CO2 zero target perspective nor from a biodiversity perspective.
Hence the urgent recommendations from the FAO, Eat Lancet study and multiple scientific studies for a major reduction in meat consumption in favor of a more balanced and healthier increase in a plant based diet.
The Initiative would have certainly contributed to this solution.
It would have helped to fulfilled the need for a more sustainable and humane form of animal agriculture.
It would have protected farmers with an import ban on products which did not fulfill the new standards and provided them with a 25 year transition period.
A missed opportunity for Switzerland, but I have no doubt that the pressures of climate change and the rise of meat alternatives will lead us down this road anyway.
所有的人类活动都会产生二氧化碳。我们必须决定哪些是重要的，哪些是多余的。种植高营养和健康的肉类和其他食物必须是一个高度优先事项。
用高度加工的、昂贵的、带有添加剂和防腐剂的素食来代替肉类不是答案......除了那些从销售这种食物中获利的人，因为这种食物对制造它的公司来说有巨大的利润空间。
All human activity produces CO2. We have to decide what is important, and what is superfluous. Growing highly nutritious and healthy meat and other foods have to be a high priority.
Replacing meat with highly processed, expensive, vegan foods with additives and preservatives is not the answer...except for those profiting from selling this food which has huge profit margins for the corporations who make it.
由于能源危机迫在眉睫，肉类消费可能无论如何都要减少。
从纸面上看，该倡议可以为当地农民和进口商品之间带来一个公平的竞争环境。它只是缺乏联邦政府可以采取的例外情况。
倡议的一个困境可能在于 "保护动物的尊严 "的文本中。对某些人来说，联邦政府甚至不能保护人类的尊严，那么它怎么能可信地保护动物的尊严？
而只要瑞士的绵羊和鹿等爱好和平的生物不得不害怕以极其残酷的方式受伤和流血致死，至少在一些人看来，这一举措似乎值得怀疑。如果人们以这种方式对待动物，他们就会理所当然地在动物保护机构中遇到麻烦。如果你真的想为动物提供有尊严的生活，那么按照今天的措辞，你首先要抓住所有的捕食者，"治疗他们有问题的行为"，并 "说服他们相信完全素食的好处"。 或者换个说法，一个人不可能在赞成动物福利的同时，又赞成动物之间的拳头权利，例如捕食者。
Auf Grund der drohenden Energiekrise wird man wohl sowieso der Fleischkonsum reduzieren müssen.
Die Initiative hätte auf dem Papier eine Chancengleichheit zwischen den lokalen Bauern und Importgütern bringen können. Es fehlten einfach Ausnahmeregelungen die der Bund hätte ergreifen können.
Ein Dilemma der Initiative mag in Text liegen mit "schützt die Würde des Tieres". Für manche schafft es der Bund nicht einmal die Würde von Menschen zu schützen, wie soll er da glaubwürdig die Würde eines Tieres schützen?
Und solange friedliebende Lebewesen wie Schafe und Rehe in der Schweiz Angst haben müssen auf äusserst grausame Art und Weise verletzt und verbluten zu müssen wirkt wohl die Initiative auf somanche gelinde gesagt fraglich. Würde man als Mensch so mit den Tieren umgehen so hätte man zurecht ärger mit dem Tierschutz. Wenn man wirklich den Tieren ein Leben im Würde bieten möchte, dann müsste man nach heutigem Wording zuerst alle Raubtiere einfangen, «ihr problematisches Verhalten therapieren» und ihnen «dem Vorteil einer vollkommen veganen Ernährung überzeugend darlegen». Oder anders ausgedrückt; man kann nicht glaubwürdig für Tierschutz und zugleich für das Faustrecht unter Tieren mit z.B. Raubtieren sein.
你好，FRODO，我发现当地农民的平等机会是一个有趣的观点。你会认为哪些豁免是合适的？
Hallo FRODO, die Chancengleichheit für die lokalen Bauern finde ich einen interessanten Punkt. Welche Ausnahmeregelungen hätten Sie für angebracht gehalten?
为什么要吃肉？为什么不停止购买垃圾食品和快速时尚？
Why meat? Why not stop buying junk food and fast fashion?
加入对话