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.
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:
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
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.
It’s a Nature article; there’s no better source for information. Not sure where you’re getting the 2/3s idea or meat idea from that article–it does not use such language.
deleted by creator
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.
So 2/3 of something that wasn’t that much to start with. Got it.
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
Insufferable
That graph is wrong/misleading:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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:
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.
deleted by creator
It’s a Nature article; there’s no better source for information. Not sure where you’re getting the 2/3s idea or meat idea from that article–it does not use such language.
the article is poorly methodized, and should not be considered reliable
this article relies on poore-nemecek 2018, and should not be considered reliable itself
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.