3 ms·
The story with livestock is complicated. From that same Wikipedia article. > The indirect effects contributing to the percentage include emissions associated w
by kinjba11 5y ago
The story with livestock is complicated. From that same Wikipedia article.
> The indirect effects contributing to the percentage include emissions associated with the production of feed consumed by livestock and carbon dioxide emission from deforestation in Central and South America, attributed to livestock production
So now deforestation is equivalent to livestock? Should I say shopping malls and residential areas are a problem because they require all the plants on the land to be cut down and paved over? I really wish these '% of everything' statistics would go away. It is almost always more complicated which fosters climate skeptics.
Energy production - aka fossil fuel burning such as coal for electricity and gas/diesel for - is the vast majority of emissions. We should be focusing on getting our democratic voting power focused on one that one easily digested story to get things done on a nation-state level instead of getting bogged down in these micro-issues. "Everything causes climate change" is impossible to fix. "Fossil fuels and especially cars and coal" cause climate change is very possible to address.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdrhpThqlCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdrhpThqlCo for examples of more nuance.