3 ms·

It's interesting to understand the impact across different food types but this type of infographic is kind of misleading when you look at emissions by sector.

It's interesting to understand the impact across different food types but this type of infographic is kind of misleading when you look at emissions by sector. The whole of agriculture related emissions pales in comparison with the emissions from coal/natural gas plants or steel industry emissions. It's ok to not eat meat for animal welfare but to spin it for emission purposes is misleading. You would have a greater impact for the environment by not using your car, not using AC in the summer, midly heating your home in the winter, stop buying trinkets from Amazon, etc.

f6v 3y ago
> You would have a greater impact for the environment by not using your car, not using AC in the summer, midly heating your home in the winter I agree with some of this. But not having cooling or heating will make the civilization existence in many parts of the world nearly impossible. India(and probably other Asian countries) is a prime example.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  At least a few years ago, 90%+ (probably even 95%+) of people in India didn't have AC, so not having cooling clearly does not make the existence of civilization impossible there.
  - f6v 3y ago
    1. The temperatures are going to get higher, and nothing is going to reverse the trend in the near future. 2. Yes, people can survive. But I assume most time is spent surviving instead of living. You can’t be very productive at 35+ degrees. 3. Many people in India survive without a toilet. Doesn’t mean it’s how it should be. And their lives will be much better if they didn’t have to defecate on the streets. I’d argue same applies to ACs.
tomp 3y ago
> not using AC in the summer Can you expand on this? AC is 100% matched by the curve of solar energy input (sun -> heat -> AC cooling but also sun -> solar power), so presumably as we transition towards more and more solar, we should be using AC more.
- 11235813213455 3y ago
  AC is still using a lot more energy (x50-x100) than a basic fan

f6v 3y ago

> You would have a greater impact for the environment by not using your car, not using AC in the summer, midly heating your home in the winter I agree with some of this. But not having cooling or heating will make the civilization existence in many parts of the world nearly impossible. India(and probably other Asian countries) is a prime example.

PeterisP 3y ago
At least a few years ago, 90%+ (probably even 95%+) of people in India didn't have AC, so not having cooling clearly does not make the existence of civilization impossible there.
- f6v 3y ago
  1. The temperatures are going to get higher, and nothing is going to reverse the trend in the near future. 2. Yes, people can survive. But I assume most time is spent surviving instead of living. You can’t be very productive at 35+ degrees. 3. Many people in India survive without a toilet. Doesn’t mean it’s how it should be. And their lives will be much better if they didn’t have to defecate on the streets. I’d argue same applies to ACs.

tomp 3y ago

> not using AC in the summer Can you expand on this? AC is 100% matched by the curve of solar energy input (sun -> heat -> AC cooling but also sun -> solar power), so presumably as we transition towards more and more solar, we should be using AC more.

11235813213455 3y ago
AC is still using a lot more energy (x50-x100) than a basic fan