From https://sh.itjust.works/post/1278677
plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
your “carbon footprint” doesn’t exist - it’s a fossil fuel industry talking point. eating less meat may be good for you and make you feel better about yourself, but it’s not a climate solution. we need systems change on a societal scale, and that’s the kind of thing that takes coordinated government action, not “voting with your wallet”
'Systems change on a societal level’s would mean either ending subsidies for animal agriculture in general, and investing that money into more sustainable food sources, or banning animal agriculture altogether. But every time this is mentioned, people throw a fit and threaten violent action because meat prices will go up and they feel entitled to their cheap burgers, no matter what the cost to the planet.
These pieces are not meant to shame you, they are meant to try to make people demand that these effective changes be made. But for as long as people insist that they shouldn’t have to change a single thing about their lifestyle, no change will ever get made.
this is one of those things that is true but taken to far. If I stop eating meat it will not end the meat industry but if I am I am supporting it and the carbon it uses to produce the meat I eat and buy. The more people who don’t buy meat the more it becomes unprofitable versus growing food. That being said I eat meat and I am trying to limit beef as me going from eating beef to chicken/pork has a more massive effect than a person going from chicken to beans. Im surprised at lamb, shrimp, and chesse on the chart though and wonder about goats. I assume cheese assume from cow but given lambs numbers and that cheese is generally from cow, goat, sheep im not sure.
It can guide policy decisions (e.g. “Is it more important to subsidize/mandate sustainable meat production or phase it out all together?”), can make voters think differently about topics, which in turn influences politics (in democracies) and can be a simple way to put into perspective the impact of millionaires and billionaires compared to average people.
Also I’ve heard people justify flying a lot because the “carbon footprint” is made up by the fossil fuel industry, which in my eyes is the same argument as “My country only makes up X% of greenhouse emissions so we shouldn’t implement a carbon tax/invest in renewable energy/… until China/the US do”.
And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger, but a private jet produces more than 10,000x the CO2 per km. Everyone can do their part to reduce overall CO2, but the rich and powerful are destroying the planet at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than you or I simply because it’s convenient for them.
We should probably stop squabbling over who’s corporate version of highly-processed, manufactured, plant-based meat and food products we’re going to substitute for animal proteins if we really care about worldwide carbon levels.
People exercising doesn’t create a comparable amount of pollution as any petromeum based vehicle.
Honestly your point makes it sound like people should not exercise. Is that really your hot take?
To be specific, exercise for health reasons increases CO2 levels for no reason other than to extend your life and, very possibly, to increase your muscle mass which increases your resting metabolic rate - you literally are generating CO2 with the effect of increasing your CO2 generation rate and the total duration you’ll be producing CO2.
In a way, this hits exactly in my rant about where we worry about CO2 production: Getting out and getting in shape, or walking and biking places for fun is a negative but, like enjoying a reasonably-sized portion of animal protein in our diet, this is not the primary driver in causing Global Climate Change and there’s a shit-ton of low hanging fruit (animal meat?) to be had but the people who make policy are the biggest offenders. We’re literally banding together in the hundred of thousands to forego a chicken breast or hamburger so some celebrity can wipe out the entire savings by flying between their home and the harbor where their yacht is docked.
And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger
That’s not right. This studyabout biking vs driving with different diets. inflates the carbon output for bikers by subtracting the calories for car drivers, but not for bicyclists.
It assumes too much and is so generalized nothing can really be gleaned from the findings.
Walking and biking are more environmentally sound than driving
Not everyone drives a “fuel-efficient” car (25 mpg according to the article), in fact the most popular car being sold are Ford F150s with mpg around 15-20. And even mpg is not a constant if you consider traffic or inclination.
I 100% agree that the wealthy are killing us much much faster.
These type of things always crack me up because we all know that just living most of us are using 2k calories or so and if you ever used one of these excersise bikes that tracks calories burned it takes tons to do like 100 calories.
Also it assumes the increase in consumption from needing more calories will be uniform when my guess is it’s not. Most people would have two servings of meat a day as a base augmented by a bunch of starches, sugars and fats to cover most of the calories, and any increases would probably be snacks of those starches and sugars that are way less co2 per calorie. If your diet is a stereotypical cheeseburger and fries, and your still hungry, your probably not gonna order another 1/4 cheeseburger and 1/4 fries, you’ll probably just get another order of fries.
And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger
Because of the extra calories you burn? Do you have a source for that?
Sure. This paper in Nature, estimates walking and cycling to generate 0.26 and 0.14kg CO2, respectively, given the diet in the most economically developed areas (I noted “typical western”, not world wide or average) in my post). The EPA calculates gasoline at 8887g CO2 per gallon, so a car which gets 39mpg (note I mentioned fuel efficient - not average) is around 0.14 kg CO2 per km (8887/39mpg/1.628km) and a car which gets 21 MPG is around 0.26 kg CO2/km (which actually is close to the average vehicle).
Nature bases their estimates on full-replacement calories for the energy burned. YkmMV based on style, location, traffic, weather, and a bunch of other factors. Walking and biking is healthier for you and will likely extend your life and increase your resting metabolic rate (=the CO2 you create just lying about), but I’m not counting that against the walkers/bikers in this equation ;-)
Note: I walk quite a bit for fun - logged about 250km on my vacation last fall - and I bike when the weather is nice - often not even to go anywhere I need to; I’m just adding to the carbon problem for personal health and entertainment purposes.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. The Nature paper includes all associated emissions for the food (using “air-freighted asparagus” as an example) while the EPA explicitly excludes non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and emissions from production and distribution of both the fuel and the car. On top of that you compare the most efficient car of 2022 in a mixed (city+highway) environment (yes you mentioned efficiency) to the upper limit of what the Nature paper estimates (if all additional energy expenditure was compensated by additional food intake), while the realistic estimate is 0.15 and 0.08kg CO2 per km for walking and cycling respectively.
So there might well be a factor of 10 between cycling to the supermarket and taking your car in terms of GHG emissions. We just can’t tell from the sources you linked. And while it’s an edgy position to take “I’m just adding to the carbon problem for personal health and entertainment purposes” your claim might well convince people that moving away from a car based society would not have any impact on CO2 emissions. I also think you could make your point that rich people have a way outsized impact without all choices of normal people being exactly the same.
yeah and are you driving that efficient car to the gym
Absolutely correct. Also guess who coined and popularized the “carbon footprint”?
No, it’s not a scientific study or a government or an NGO. It was big oil.
It is, but also, if you aren’t farming your food, your life will almost certainly need to change dramatically.
Animal products are incredibly harmful to the climate and are inherently wasteful.
Those corporations get their money from people like you.
Yes regulation would be the best to stop them but you know that’s not gonna happen any time soon, especially when everyone refuses to change their own habits, politicians aren’t gonna force through regulations that get people angry because they want their steaks.
Why do you want to continue to participate in something bad until it’s legally not allowed anymore?
Why not do what you can (stop consuming animal products) while also advocating for regulation and political change?What does holding evil corporations accountable look like if not refusing to give them your money?
Good read that I’ll be sharing.
Sure, “carbon footprint” and “voting with your wallet” are ways to put the blame on the consumer but it also sends a message when the bottom line starts to shrink.
