3 ms·
> Global direct greenhouse gas emissions from transportation versus livestock represent 14 versus 5 percent respectively. The FAO's latest number for livestock
by rewq4321 7y ago
> Global direct greenhouse gas emissions from transportation versus livestock represent 14 versus 5 percent respectively.
The FAO's latest number for livestock emissions is 14.5% when considering the full life-cycle. It doesn't matter that we don't have a full life-cycle analysis for transportation - that doesn't change the number for livestock. The author tries to dismiss the 14.5% because "[transportation might be a bigger culprit]" and talks about "unringing" the bell on the FAO report simply because of a correction from 18% to 14.5%, which seems a bit of an overstatement.
On top of this, new (2017) data seems to suggest that our predictions of livestock emissions were too low:
> Using the new emissions factors, we estimate global livestock emissions of 119.1 ± 18.2 Tg methane in 2011; this quantity is 11% greater than that obtained using the IPCC 2006 emissions factors, encompassing an 8.4% increase in enteric fermentation methane, a 36.7% increase in manure management methane, and notable variability among regions and sources.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5620025/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5620025/
- ar-jan 7y agoIt does matter, because it makes sense to focus on the biggest contributors to emissions, where the most gains could be made. The current thinking goes we should eat "less or no meat", when the effort could be put towards not using grain for livestock feed, and promoting other changes such as reducing methane specifically by adding seaweed to the livestock's diet. That's not to mention that grazing is essential to both prevent and reverse desertification.
- rewq4321 7y agoI think this is a "we shouldn't bother with X because Y also helps (and is more convenient for me), even though they're not mutually exclusive" argument.