you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (18 children)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I meant 2/3 of your personal food emissions. I'm aware that this is not the solution, but it's a very easy step and no solution will be enough without us changing what we eat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    So 2/3 of something that wasn't that much to start with. Got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Theres a reason people go with published peer reviewed journals and not the data sheets of non profits who refuse to disclose their sources of income. The link to the journal they're referring to is in the article:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

    The data used in thr screen grabs you have also, very deliberately, separated the energy and transportation used by the meat industry, as separate things not used by the meat industry

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    this article relies on poore-nemecek 2018, and should not be considered reliable itself

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    No? They merely state that their results are consistent with one of Poore and Nemecek's findings. The methods, article scope, and more differ.

    I'm not going to defend the article further. If you all want to believe a website over a scientific publication, feel free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I know how to: .71 * 18 = 12.78 Gt, which is more than double what your graph ascribes to agriculture.

    Also, there's no need to be rude, even if I had been wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Your graphic uses the same larger type of metric of greenhouse gases as does the Nature article. If you click on the greenhouse gas equivalents bit in the header where the figure came from, it makes that clear:

    Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, but not the only one. To capture all greenhouse gas emissions, researchers express them in “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO₂eq). This takes all greenhouse gases into account, not just CO₂.

    You're not wrong about meat not comprising two-thirds of any person's total GHG emissions, and I've never suggested otherwise. I just wanted to provide a better source of information than that graphic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)