Ah, I see I didn't say the silent part out loud. I didn't mention animals specifically because meat production is stupidly bad for the environment, so incorrectly assumed that was a given. I was specifically saying veganism isn't inherently better than a vegetarian diet, not eliminating technical animal by-product like honey. I suppose there isn't a term for "things that vegans won't eat because technically an animal by-product, but still not terribly bad for the environment, at least not any worst than growing other vegetables on an induatrial scale". Think things like cricket flour. Not vegan, but not ecologically bad either.
A vegetarian society would be almost worse for the environment unfortunately. Without grinding up male chickens (unneeded for egg production), and without killing male cows at 1 year for meat (unneeded for milk production), we'd be subject to feeding these animals for their whole life rather than what their carcass can provide at young ages. Plus with specific honey bee populations taking pollen away from local indigenous bees, we could see species wiped out in pursuit of it. It's best for the environment to just stop eating what comes out of animals, and starting eating what we feed to them instead.
Of course, I see your point, and I see the disconnect we have here! To simplify my stance, I wouldn't want to rule out animal by-products as a food category, as those can be valuable calories to people in places where farming might not be feasible for all their nutrition needs. That said, and to your point, traditional animal by-product might not be included. As you mentioned, industrial egg production, milk production, or honey production (in places that don't naturally support honeybees) are not likely candidates for sustainable food sources.
