4 ms·

The article makes a bit of a deal of the EU average being twice the world average, but doesn’t provide numbers for other similarly developed areas making it sou

The article makes a bit of a deal of the EU average being twice the world average, but doesn’t provide numbers for other similarly developed areas making it sound like the EU is somehow the only one with this problem. The US sits at 1.8, Canada at 1.3. It’s also helpful to keep in mind that this is “carcass mass” FAO[1] numbers and the accuracy section[2] of the Wikipedia article on it provides some useful context around what that means. [1]: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/CL https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/CL [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_co... With all of that said, reducing the climate impact of our food is something we will need to do, and moderating our intake is something we can do to help with that.

mytailorisrich 5y ago
The EU average is twice the world average because the poor eat less meat than the rich because they cannot afford it. The same goes for consumption in general. For instance, China's meat consumption has skyrocketed since the 1960s to the point that it apparently now consumes more than a quarter of the world's meat. This is what happens when people's standards of living improve and poverty decreases. This is why the level of global population along with global development trends are key for all environmental and climate issues.