4 ms·

It's very dubious to be putting our efforts advocating this as the "single biggest way", certainly it's terrible marketing if you want to really convince people

by adwf 3y ago

It's very dubious to be putting our efforts advocating this as the "single biggest way", certainly it's terrible marketing if you want to really convince people. According to the IPCC: https://ahdb.org.uk/carbon https://ahdb.org.uk/carbon Agriculture makes up 8.5% of global emissions - knock 75% of that off if we somehow convinced the *entire planet* to go vegan, add a bit back for the extra veg we need to grow and other unknown inefficiencies and we're talking a relatively small shift in GHG emissions compared to other areas. We need to cut 50% total, not 5%! Yes, every little bit helps... but as I emphasised above, you need the ENTIRE PLANET to switch to veganism in the next 5-10 years and it's still not enough. The serious danger of the rhetoric put out by vegan activists in regards climate change is that people will think they've "done their bit", when in reality it's peanuts and completely disregards the biggest factors in climate change. The single biggest way to reduce our environmental burden isn't eating more veg/less meat, it's voting for green causes - both politically and with your wallets (investments, pensions, local goods, etc). By all means go veggie on top, but please don't do just that!

8note 3y ago
How do agriculture logistics emissions get counted though? As agriculture? Or something else?
- adwf 3y ago
  Yes, they're in the 8.5%. I think something like 4% is direct agriculture in terms of fertiliser, methane, etc. The rest is transport, energy consumption, etc. There is a further 10-15% of land-use degradation (eg. Amazon rainforest destruction), but this is dubious to include in the calcs and has a big variance depending on which study you look at. For example: My beef comes from just up the road and is grass fed, going vegan has zero impact on that land-use degradation figure. It's a convenient luxury in a developed economy to go vegan, but good luck convincing developing nations to forgo the luxuries we've enjoyed for centuries because we screwed up the climate! In my opinion, even if you started today it's not like the rainforests are going to be all replanted in a decade, nor are they going to grow to full rejuvenating capacity anytime in the next 50 years. People need to focus on the big things! More wind, more solar, more battery, less oil, more efficient industry, more eco-friendly concrete, reduce shipping, produce locally/consume locally, etc.

by adwf 3y ago

8note 3y ago

How do agriculture logistics emissions get counted though? As agriculture? Or something else?

adwf 3y ago
Yes, they're in the 8.5%. I think something like 4% is direct agriculture in terms of fertiliser, methane, etc. The rest is transport, energy consumption, etc. There is a further 10-15% of land-use degradation (eg. Amazon rainforest destruction), but this is dubious to include in the calcs and has a big variance depending on which study you look at. For example: My beef comes from just up the road and is grass fed, going vegan has zero impact on that land-use degradation figure. It's a convenient luxury in a developed economy to go vegan, but good luck convincing developing nations to forgo the luxuries we've enjoyed for centuries because we screwed up the climate! In my opinion, even if you started today it's not like the rainforests are going to be all replanted in a decade, nor are they going to grow to full rejuvenating capacity anytime in the next 50 years. People need to focus on the big things! More wind, more solar, more battery, less oil, more efficient industry, more eco-friendly concrete, reduce shipping, produce locally/consume locally, etc.