3 ms·
> The environmental impact is still number_of_individuals * mean_consumption. you're basically just defining the mean here, this misses the point that cities a
by ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> The environmental impact is still number_of_individuals * mean_consumption.
you're basically just defining the mean here, this misses the point that cities are more efficient, making their mean consumption per capital lower
- myshpa 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364865
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364515
- myshpa 3y ago> you're basically just defining the mean here No, I'm not. The environmental impact of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Los Angeles, California, will differ significantly, even if they have similar populations and technology levels. When it comes to meat consumption alone, citizens of Addis Ababa consume approximately 5-10 kg per year, while in the USA, it's about 125 kg per year. The difference in consumption, or affluence, is the critical parameter here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoa better comparison would be the per capita impact of residents in downtown LA vs LA suburbs