3 ms·
I 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 resea
by iso1337 8y ago
I 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.