4 ms·
Isn't the math clear that meat consumption requires more emissions than non-meat consumption, on average (as in per calorie)?
by heretogetout 4y ago
Isn't the math clear that meat consumption requires more emissions than non-meat consumption, on average (as in per calorie)?
- zamfi 4y agoDid I say somewhere that meat consumption is not problematic?
- heretogetout 4y agoI'm responding to "people disagree with the notion that reducing meat consumption is helpful from an emissions perspective". People may disagree but it's like disagreeing that 100 > 1 -- who cares what they think?
- ncmncm 4y agoWhat it says is > "not ... that people disagree"
- heretogetout 4y agoRight you are...
- heretogetout 4y agoSorry, I managed to misread your comment a few times.
- nradov 4y agoYou should probably sit still and not move around too much in order to minimize the number of calories you need to stay alive. If that's the metric we're optimizing for, anyway.
- heretogetout 4y agoThis is the sort of childish reply I see when folks talk about emissions from meat consumption/production. What's next, are you going to tell me that every steak I don't eat you'll eat two more? That's a classic.
- jazzyjackson 4y agodepends on the meat and the non-meat. There is carbon-negative beef, and there are plants that require enormous amounts of artificial soil additives. Probably the biggest factor is whether the meat comes from a ranch in your general area and if the bell-pepper in your salad was flown in from holland.
- tcfhgj 4y agomeet the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Hq8eVOMHs&t=4s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Hq8eVOMHs&t=4s
- fortysixdegrees 4y agoGreat video. What seems obvious to those of us interested in the topic is clearly quite foreign to most people in this forum after reading the comments.