4 ms·

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%

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.