4 ms·

That is an enormous lie. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Agri

That is an enormous lie. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Agriculture in total is 10%. Transportation is 29%

dTal 5y ago
That seems pretty comparable.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  If you consider 10% to be 29% it certainly is very comparable.
  - dTal 5y ago
    Comparable doesn't mean identical. It means they exist on the same scale, or are of similar magnitude. Obviously that's subjective to an extent, but a factor of 3 is only half an order of magnitude - sufficiently similar that "enormous lie" seems a rather unfair description.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      Nearly 300% difference is a huge and fitting description of a huge lie. 10% is also all agriculture, not just bovine production, and even if you removed trucks in transportation, I am sure its not going to be similiar at all.
wongarsu 5y ago
Emissions in Transportation are dominated by road transport, which I didn't include. Road transport is responsible for about 70-80% of all transport emissions. See for example [1] for a more detailed breakdown. They list Aviation as 1.9% of total emissions, Shipping (by ship) as 1.7%, Livestock & manure as 5.8%. So by those numbers planes and ships add to 3.6, much less than the 5.8 of livestock (and that's not including use of energy or transport for livestock). 1: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  That data is from 2016. It’s rather outdated. That amount of percentage change is rather low for the disproportionate impact it would have, its like convincing others to use a raspberry pi 3 for a gaming desktop to use less energy but ignore the hvac that can be replaced with more efficient energy usage with less of an impact.
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    With data from 2020 the comparison would be unfair and even worse, look e.g. at chart 2 in [1] about how transportation emissions changed in recent years. I can't find good worldwide numbers newer than 2016, but my statement should have plenty of margin to hold for a couple of years after 2016. > That amount of percentage change is rather low for the disproportionate impact it would have That's the neat thing about artificial meat (what this whole thread was about): at its best it promises to slash the need for livestock without requiring any change in consumer behavior. The consumer shouldn't even notice that it's not real meat they are eating. Of course there's impact on farmers, but that's no different from the petroleum industry being harmed from the move to EVs. 1: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases-7/assessment-2 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport...
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      >That's the neat thing about artificial meat (what this whole thread was about): at its best it promises to slash the need for livestock without requiring any change in consumer behavior. The consumer shouldn't even notice that it's not real meat they are eating. They know. That is the hope, but the plant based ones are disgusting. If you're talking about the bovine serum derrived one, you're assuming a 1:1 replacement that is equal in price. Manure is used to fertilize plants, it is used as a fuel in india, and can be used as a substrate to grown mushrooms but its benefits are ignored since solutions aren't really being suggested, only the complete removal of cows is acceptable. All these problems are wealthy problems, the poor are not going to have this impact them, and it will cost too much for it to reach the masses.

dTal 5y ago

That seems pretty comparable.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
If you consider 10% to be 29% it certainly is very comparable.
- dTal 5y ago
  Comparable doesn't mean identical. It means they exist on the same scale, or are of similar magnitude. Obviously that's subjective to an extent, but a factor of 3 is only half an order of magnitude - sufficiently similar that "enormous lie" seems a rather unfair description.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Nearly 300% difference is a huge and fitting description of a huge lie. 10% is also all agriculture, not just bovine production, and even if you removed trucks in transportation, I am sure its not going to be similiar at all.

wongarsu 5y ago

Emissions in Transportation are dominated by road transport, which I didn't include. Road transport is responsible for about 70-80% of all transport emissions. See for example [1] for a more detailed breakdown. They list Aviation as 1.9% of total emissions, Shipping (by ship) as 1.7%, Livestock & manure as 5.8%. So by those numbers planes and ships add to 3.6, much less than the 5.8 of livestock (and that's not including use of energy or transport for livestock). 1: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

GhettoComputers 5y ago
That data is from 2016. It’s rather outdated. That amount of percentage change is rather low for the disproportionate impact it would have, its like convincing others to use a raspberry pi 3 for a gaming desktop to use less energy but ignore the hvac that can be replaced with more efficient energy usage with less of an impact.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  With data from 2020 the comparison would be unfair and even worse, look e.g. at chart 2 in [1] about how transportation emissions changed in recent years. I can't find good worldwide numbers newer than 2016, but my statement should have plenty of margin to hold for a couple of years after 2016. > That amount of percentage change is rather low for the disproportionate impact it would have That's the neat thing about artificial meat (what this whole thread was about): at its best it promises to slash the need for livestock without requiring any change in consumer behavior. The consumer shouldn't even notice that it's not real meat they are eating. Of course there's impact on farmers, but that's no different from the petroleum industry being harmed from the move to EVs. 1: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases-7/assessment-2 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport...
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    >That's the neat thing about artificial meat (what this whole thread was about): at its best it promises to slash the need for livestock without requiring any change in consumer behavior. The consumer shouldn't even notice that it's not real meat they are eating. They know. That is the hope, but the plant based ones are disgusting. If you're talking about the bovine serum derrived one, you're assuming a 1:1 replacement that is equal in price. Manure is used to fertilize plants, it is used as a fuel in india, and can be used as a substrate to grown mushrooms but its benefits are ignored since solutions aren't really being suggested, only the complete removal of cows is acceptable. All these problems are wealthy problems, the poor are not going to have this impact them, and it will cost too much for it to reach the masses.