5 ms·
Only 1 report lists it like that. Looking at China GHG emissions, food production isn't even in top 10. Although, environmental destruction and pollution, wate
by superpermutat0r 8y ago
Only 1 report lists it like that. Looking at China GHG emissions, food production isn't even in top 10.
Although, environmental destruction and pollution, water use, pretty high. So it was funny to see a major face of Sierra Club being totally oblivious to it.
- iso1337 8y agoI agree that environmental costs of beef production are quite high. For me, personally, what also matters is the relative ranking of impacts. I did some research into this and here are the top personal contributors to GHG emissions (presumably for a person living in a developed country). (All figures in tons CO2 per year) Have one fewer child: 58.6 Live car free: 2.4 One less transatlantic flight: 1.6 Buy green energy: 1.47 EV to car free: 1.15 Plant-based diet: 0.82 etc... The interesting thing is that based on this analysis, on average our transportation usage far dominates the plant-based diet aspect. Popular press (with some interesting follow-on thoughts about how most of the emissions are produced by the wealthy). https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/14/15963544/climate-change-individual-choices https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/14/1596354... original paper here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/...
- superpermutat0r 8y agoThere's a nice book, Without Hot Air https://www.withouthotair.com/ https://www.withouthotair.com/ and yes, a first world individual probably uses a bunch of the GHG "budget" on heating the home, water + transatlantic flights. Even cars are not that bad.
- codesnik 8y ago58.6 tons CO2 / year per child? isn't that a bit too much?
- steve19 8y agoI guess they are rolling up the child's entire lifetime of Carbon usage including all flights ever taken etc.