5 ms·

Transport and home comfort are #2 and #3 in the list for your average US citizen for production of carbon output. #1 is food, so in your list, we need to inclu

by moosey 8y ago

Transport and home comfort are #2 and #3 in the list for your average US citizen for production of carbon output. #1 is food, so in your list, we need to include meat consumption as one of the sacrifices that we must make. This is, stunningly, one of the harder ones for people to adjust to, based on anecdotal evidence. Changing out your car is easy, as long as you still have a personal vehicle (I think that this logic must change too). Your house needs to be more efficient, but that's fine as long as you have a single family home (I think that this must change as well). It just seems that there is a logical leap in the list of sacrifices that people have a lot of difficulty with.

TheCoelacanth 8y ago
I'm curious what your source is for this, because it isn't matched by the ones I'm finding. The EPA[1] says that 9% of emissions come from agriculture while 28% comes from transportation with about half of that being from passenger vehicles. Also this article[2] says that giving up a car for transportation is higher impact than giving up meat. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [2] 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...
- moosey 8y ago
  http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/21/lifestyle-change-eat-less-meat-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/21/lifestyl... There are a number of others, but many of the studies that show largely meat free living vs. living with meat have ignored Biomass Transfer Efficiency. Giving up meat, as a society, would reduce the amount of plant matter that we need to grow by a huge amount, allowing large tracts of land to return to nature, locking up carbon and reducing the amount of fertilizers that we need to use, by a huge extent. However, I do think that we get here just as well with a hefty carbon tax, as we watch meat prices jump through the roof.

by moosey 8y ago

TheCoelacanth 8y ago

I'm curious what your source is for this, because it isn't matched by the ones I'm finding. The EPA[1] says that 9% of emissions come from agriculture while 28% comes from transportation with about half of that being from passenger vehicles. Also this article[2] says that giving up a car for transportation is higher impact than giving up meat. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [2] 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...

moosey 8y ago
http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/21/lifestyle-change-eat-less-meat-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/21/lifestyl... There are a number of others, but many of the studies that show largely meat free living vs. living with meat have ignored Biomass Transfer Efficiency. Giving up meat, as a society, would reduce the amount of plant matter that we need to grow by a huge amount, allowing large tracts of land to return to nature, locking up carbon and reducing the amount of fertilizers that we need to use, by a huge extent. However, I do think that we get here just as well with a hefty carbon tax, as we watch meat prices jump through the roof.