why the hypocrisy argument does not have a leg to stand on

If you are an advocate of the anti-vegan hypocrisy argument and you sometimes drive a car, please do the following simple challenge:

Totally ignore risk of car crashes and any negative effects from alleged anthropogenic climate change, and simply consider your expected contribution to human deaths from air-pollution-related deaths alone, from your car-driving activity over and above what is "strictly necessary" (however you define that) over a period of one year, and compare it with my expected contribution to wild-animal deaths from *everything I do* over one year. Do you currently know which number is bigger? If you do know that right now, let's see the calculations. If you don't, but you still want to claim with a straight face to be someone who's consistently putting a human-rights-based ethic into practice with their daily behaviour, then do please be kind enough to shut up for ever about the anti-vegan hypocrisy argument. One or the other. If you don't mind.