3 ms·
> So, a huge project is set up to change the lifestyle (food preparation) of almost a third of the world population. To remove at most 2% of greenhouse gas emis
by IanCal 3y ago
> So, a huge project is set up to change the lifestyle (food preparation) of almost a third of the world population. To remove at most 2% of greenhouse gas emissions?
And improve health outcomes, these things are bad for people breathing nearby - especially when used in small areas.
You have actually cut out
> contributing to 2 to 3 million premature deaths annually
from the sentence!
- closewith 3y agoYeah, this would be worth doing even if it increased emissions.
- zekrioca 3y ago> even if it increased emissions And shift the health and environmental issues to other places?
- berkes 3y agoI deliberately cut that from the sentence to focus on the carbon emission part. Which is neglegible. I think the part that improves health and reduces death, is extremely valuable. But important like vaccinations, sewers and food programs are important.
- IanCal 3y ago> Which is neglegible. 2% is not negligible at all. Only 5 countries emit more than 2% of the total, for the rest are all of their emissions negligible? 2% is double the impact of making all international flights carbon zero. It's like making all international shipping carbon neutral. So it's honestly a large result, but not only that it also saves huge numbers of lives, and improves the health of many more. If you want to argue it's a bad thing to do or focus on, you cannot simply ignore "also it saves millions of lives a year".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wolvesechoes 3y ago> > contributing to 2 to 3 million premature deaths annually 2 to 3 million less carbon emitters annually /s.
- Ekaros 3y agoToo bad that these are those who don't emit a lot.