jeffwPlant-heavy ‘flexitarian’ diets could help limit global heating, study finds
Outsider9042Are we doing this again?
The are 100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions. States can test nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean; nah eat a salad for lunch.
And what do those companies produce? A lot of them make food. They don’t give a fuck as long as people keep eating insane amounts of meat.
But if it makes you feel better, abdicate your personal responsibility and point the finger. But no matter how you vote, it won’t save the world as long as meat production is going up. They don’t raise the cows if you don’t buy the beef
Ah yes concrete manufacturers, one of the largest producers of greenhouse gasses, are only doing it because of meat eaters. Fun fact, the number one producer of greenhouse gasses in France isn’t an entire industry, there’s a single concrete factory that outweighs every other greenhouse gas producing industry in the country.
www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/10/3/43
amp.theguardian.com/…/meat-greenhouses-gases-food…
“He killed 5 people, I only killed 1!” Is not a valid defense of criminal activity. Nor does “concrete is worse than our food chain” mean we shouldn’t fix it
Impact of Dietary Meat and Animal Products on GHG Footprints: The UK and the US
Direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the ~30+ billion animals consumed as food each year contribute ~14–16% of the global total. The aim of this research is to determine the contribution of meat and animal products to individual GHG footprints. Top-down estimates of GHG emissions from each livestock species are determined using livestock numbers, types, and region-specific emission factors. Comparing livestock emissions with those from individual countries, cattle rank as the third largest emitter after China and the United States (US). The largest uncertainty in these emissions calculations is in the range of emissions factors. Global top-down calculations indicate that the per capita GHG footprint from livestock emissions alone are approximately 1 tCO2eyr−1. For the United Kingdom (UK) and the US, the calculated GHG livestock-related footprints are 1.1 tCO2eyr−1 and 1.6 tCO2eyr−1 per person, respectively. Bottom-up calculations focused on the UK and the US from consumption figures indicated emissions related to meat consumption are approximately 1.3–1.5 tCO2eyr−1 per person. Comparing dietary changes with other ways of reducing GHG footprints indicates removing dietary meat is similar to avoiding one long-haul flight each year and a larger reduction than driving 100 miles less each week.
I never said that we shouldn’t fix anything, I was refuting your point that we only produce so many greenhouse gasses because we eat so much meat when that just isn’t the case.
It’s totally the case. Beef is one of the worst products out there because it produces methane, one of the worst GHGs pound for pound.
There’s also incredible inefficiencies with beef, since it takes more calories to raise than any other type of meat (or, god forbid, just growing plants and eating them). This isn’t really a matter of opinion, it’s just the reality of climate change
Please just read what you’re responding to properly. I KNOW CATTLE FARMING PRODUCES GREENHOUSE GASSES. You were saying that if people stopped eating meat then almost all of the carbon emissions would stop but like I said that isn’t the case because some of the worst producers (like concrete manufacturers or fossil fuel companies) don’t care what you eat. Even if everyone stopped eating any form of animal products and we just culled all of the livestock worldwide, unless you want to revert to buildings from the 1600s those companies are still going to be emitting insane amounts of greenhouse gasses.
talStates can test nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean
They generally can’t.
en.wikipedia.org/…/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treat…
The Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), formally known as the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, prohibited all test detonations of nuclear weapons except for those conducted underground. It is also abbreviated as the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) and Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (NTBT), though the latter may also refer to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which succeeded the PTBT for ratifying parties.
Not everyone is a signatory – China, France, and North Korea are notable exceptions.
But even if they could, how would that relate?
Global warming isn’t a function of nuclear weapon testing.
Global warming isn’t a function of nuclear weapon testing.
This reminds me of something I learned in climatology. Those who did pioneering work studying ocean circulation which became instrumental later in formulating the general circulation models used today discovered they could measure the currents by tracking radioisotopes from open air nuclear tests done back in the 60s. So ironically, nuclear weapons testing has furthered our understanding of climate and global warming.
