7 ms·
Is there an ordered list of what produces most pollution? What's at the top? Is there an easy way to answer the question "I just did environmentally bad thing X
by noja 7y ago
Is there an ordered list of what produces most pollution? What's at the top? Is there an easy way to answer the question "I just did environmentally bad thing X, now what can I do to offset that?"
- inapis 7y agoYes. Fossil fuels for power generation, followed by transportation and industry [1] > Is there an easy way to answer the question "I just did environmentally bad thing X, now what can I do to offset that?" Little bit but to seriously make an impact you might have to look for alternative sources of powering your life. But nevertheless every single bit helps. This climate change conundrum cannot be fixed without the entire planet committing to it. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#co2-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- nabla9 7y agoThe list you provide is missing some man made sources of CO2 and methane. It's just CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Meat production is almost as much as transportation, roughly 17%.
- sampo 7y ago> Meat production is almost as much as transportation, roughly 17%. That 17% includes all transportation related to meat production. If meat was replaced by plant-based foods, not all of that transportation could be eliminated.
- nabla9 7y agoThe overlap is less than 2% of the total man made CO2 emissions. Processing and transportation of animal products is 6% of the meat production emissions. Feed production also involves transportation, that would add maybe half of that (3%).
- gingabriska 7y agoProbably one of the problem with meat is too much water required for its processing which against has a processing cost.
- nikehat 7y agoLivestock consume far more feed grains (mostly corn) than they produce food on their own [1]. The transportation costs to feed them are greater than the transportation costs would be if we were to feed humans on plant based foods, so transportation would actually be reduced if we lowered the amount of animal products we consume. [1] http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-mi...
- sampo 7y agoThat is a US-specific article. In the US, animal agriculture contributes about 2.8% of US total CO2eq emissions, whereas US transportation sector contributes 26%. https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-...
- nikehat 7y agoNot sure what your point is. I never said emissions related to animal agriculture outweigh total transportation emissions. What I said was reducing meat consumption would lower transportation emissions associated with food.
- dillonmckay 7y agoI wonder if corn were not subsidized to the extent it is, would alternative food sources grown on-site be more competitive, like grass?
- kibwen 7y agoThough all meat production is not made equal; beef production is overwhelmingly more emissive per serving (6.61 lbs of CO2 per 4 oz) than pork (1.72 lbs) or poultry (1.26). Even without giving up eating meat, substituting most of your beef meals for chicken would still be a step in the right direction (and is essentially zero-cost, considering that this requires no significant lifestyle changes and anywhere that sells beef is almost certainly also going to sell chicken). http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet
- JamesBarney 7y agoThis might have ethical implications considering how much worse chicken lives are than cows lives and how many more chickens you need to kill per calorie.
- jogjayr 7y agoInaction will lead to climate change killing millions of humans. If someone won't consider eating vegetarian more often, switching to chicken is far better from an ethical standpoint than doing nothing.
- JamesBarney 7y agoPeople killed by climate change 250,000/year Assuming switching to chicken reduces carbon by 12%, assuming carbon responsible for 250,000 death then meat consumption is responsible 30,000 ppl/year Number of cows in u.s. 30,000,000 for 3% of global market US market responsible for 900 deaths / year 140 chickens / cow(calorie wise) estimated 20 years of life lost per death 18,000 QALY for 4.1 billion more chickens Rough estimate of 2.3 minutes of human life gained per chicken raised
- jogjayr 7y agoThanks for doing that calculation. I really appreciate that you put in that much work. > People killed by climate change 250,000/year Is that a current number? Or a projection of what might happen with 2 degree or 4 degree Celsius increase in temperature?
- billfruit 7y agoDoes rice cultivation generate more greenhouse gases than meat farming?
- bin0 7y ago> cannot be fixed without the entire planet committing to it. And if the entire planet will not commit as you desire? Then what will you do? War is the ultimate extension of any policy; will you personally go kill other people because they burn oil? I've got nothing against renewables, but don't like this kind of absolutist rhetoric.
- ForHackernews 7y agoOne of the best lists is https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank It's ranked in terms of low-hanging fruit ('these are the highest-impact changes we could make') rather than absolute harm, but the spirit is the same as the question you're asking. Realistically, the only thing you can do as an individual is campaign for political change: https://www.sunrisemovement.org/ https://www.sunrisemovement.org/ http://climatehawksvote.com/ http://climatehawksvote.com/ https://rebellion.earth/ https://rebellion.earth/
- superdude264 7y agoThis is really neat. In this space, is the normal metric 'atmospheric CO2 equivalent'? Is this just so they can normalize the affects of all the different things that cause warming into one unit for discussion purposes?
- cagenut 7y agoyes: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#global-warming-potential-of-greenhouse-gases https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- new2628 7y agoJust do less of it, there is no way to offset anything.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Ensorceled 7y agoFundamentally, there is very little you can change on an individual basis that will make a real difference. By all means, lead by example, but we have to support systemic changes at all levels of government to actually make any head way here.
- tyfon 7y agoIf everyone thinks like this nothing will change. You can do both. Campaign for political change and change your personal behaviour. I've done radical changes to my life at least last few years to reduce my pollution/co2 footprint and if more people think like this it _will_ help. So saying that there is nothing that can be done on the individual level is quite dangerous as I personally think over time this will have the biggest effect as more and more people realise that is what has to be done. Then you need the politicians to kick remaining ignorant part of the population into action.
- tim333 7y agoDunno - if you look at the ozone hole business it was fixed by a global action to ban CFCs and the like. An individual stopping using aerosols or what have you wouldn't really have fixed things. With CO2 emissions we have a lot of individuals trying to make changes and again it's not really fixing things - CO2 levels keep going up. It's a bit trickier than the ozone thing though.
- tyfon 7y agoBanning CFCs etc did not require people to fundamentally change their lifestyles. Reducing carbon emissions does so and due to that it requires knowledge and action from the individual I think as a politician trying to change people who do not want to change is doomed. It is a lot trickier than the ozone issue and I think it requires action on all levels from the individual to the UN.
- tim333 7y agoCarbon pricing (https://medium.com/@IFC_org/carbon-pricing-is-crucial-to-save-planet-83b41674ec2c https://medium.com/@IFC_org/carbon-pricing-is-crucial-to-sav...) and advancing tech like solar are probably the way to go.
- cagenut 7y agorealistically there is no way to "offset" carbon emissions today. there are plenty of people that will take your money, but to date they can be considered at best beta tests, not functioning solutions. your choice is to vote hard environmentalist, agitate hard for immediate change, stop flying and stop driving and stop eating red meat. or don't. but don't delude yourself. a lot of people wish so hard there were easier options that they will endlessly talk about made up ones. but those are the only real ones today.
- noja 7y ago> realistically there is no way to "offset" carbon emissions today. Of course there is. How many steaks is a flight from London to Paris?
- dr_dshiv 7y agoAlso, don't have children and pursuade those around you to not have children. It's about 60 times more impactful than going vegetarian. https://images.app.goo.gl/WzvXhy9brdTih8PWA https://images.app.goo.gl/WzvXhy9brdTih8PWA I have 3 kids, so I'm basically forced on one side of the climate debate. I worry will soon have to wear a scarlet letter for my shame. Instead, I intensely advocate for technology-based approaches to climate stabilization, such as marine cloud brightening.
- i2amsam 7y agoCheck out https://www.drawdown.org/ https://www.drawdown.org/ it’s an ordered list of the areas to tackle
- fghtr 7y agoIf you are talking about personal CO2 imprint, then here you go: http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full.jpg http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...