5 ms·
Isn't it rather exaggerated? Doesn't agriculture as a whole cause around 11% of emissions but car driving and heating/cooling causes around 30%? So if we all s
by gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
Isn't it rather exaggerated? Doesn't agriculture as a whole cause around 11% of emissions but car driving and heating/cooling causes around 30%?
So if we all stopped eating meat we could cut emissions but a couple of % but if we all stopped driving and turned our heating down/up we could actually make a real difference?
Edited with real numbers from https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/
- tito 6y agoWish there was a good tool to give you an answer on this, or a way to poke around and be curious. http://energyliteracy.com/ http://energyliteracy.com/ gets close but it's USA only. This article suggests livestock greenhouse gas emissions are equivalent to the entire transportation sector. Basically because methane and carbon dioxide have different effects on warming: https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-or-cars-1919932136.html https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-...
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y agoI have absolutely no idea what anything means in that chart. If you have a good source I would be delighted to read it.
- cj 6y agoI found that infographic very enlightening. Thanks for sharing.
- Ma8ee 6y agoAgriculture causes around 10%, while transportation, including freight and flights causes around 30%. Among the most effective things you can do yourself with minimal impact of your way of life is choosing to eat less meat. Edit: the numbers I remembered was for Europe. Globally food production is 25%
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y agoThese are USA numbers correct? My numbers are whole world numbers.
- astura 6y agoMost I can tell your numbers are just entirely made up, I've never heard of any serious study ever estimating global green house gas emissions from agriculture under 10%. https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ >Globally, the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions are electricity and heat (31%), agriculture (11%), transportation (15%), forestry (6%) and manufacturing (12%). Energy production of all types accounts for 72 percent of all emissions.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y agoThanks I updated my OP with those numbers.
- fortran77 6y agoYou can also eat less food if you're obese or overweight. That's will even save you money! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-shift-obesity-packs-serious-climate-consequences/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-shift-obes...
- dang 6y agoPlease don't start on this theme again. Your posts are fine otherwise, and we value you as a user! But this was a big problem before and it's best if it doesn't start up again.
- cj 6y agoQuick googling: “ Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories” It’s not just about emissions. It’s also about the massive amount of land required to produce meat vs. crops for human consumption. Re: cutting out meat vs. driving, only one of those activities is necessary to survive for the very high percentage of the population who don’t have access to public transit.
- jschwartzi 6y agoAnd in particular it's about the amount of virgin forest being cut down in places like Brazil to satisfy the global export market for beef cattle.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- glogla 6y agoBut how much of that agricultural land is pastures unsuitable for growing things for human consumption? You can probably give corn to people instead of cows in the US (yay more HFCS!) but you can't ask the sheep and goat herders to graze themselves.
- jacobr1 6y agoAlso the vast scrubland used for ranching in the western-US is not a great place for agriculture due to water availability.
- dr_hooo 6y agoEven in your exam it's not "either/or"- we need to get everything down a notch because realistically we not getting to 0% anywhere