4 ms·
Not saying it's not the right metric, I'm saying the "1.9% to agriculture" number isn't including fertilizers, chemicals, or supply chains so the food isn't rot
by floatrock 2y ago
Not saying it's not the right metric, I'm saying the "1.9% to agriculture" number isn't including fertilizers, chemicals, or supply chains so the food isn't rotting in your silo. It does include fuel for tractors on the farm though.
- pfdietz 2y agoI believe it IS including those. From the link: "Large amounts of natural gas are required in the manufacturing of fertilizer and pesticide, so these amounts are categorized as indirect energy consumption on farms. Overall, about three-fifths of energy in 2016 used in the agricultural sector was consumed directly on-farm, while two-fifths were consumed indirectly in the form of fertilizer and pesticides."
- floatrock 2y agoIt's ambiguous, so I regret posting the link. Usually in energy accounting, "indirect" means "accounting puts it into a different category, but we acknowledge that other category wouldn't be making it if the demand for them wasn't here in this category and we differentiate it so we don't double-count it". Scope 1 vs Scope 2 & 3 in carbon-reporting land, if you will. Combining primary and indirect energy is possible, I suppose, but it's not how it's usually done? So I gave a shit link, emissions reporting is dead for at least the next 4 years, and so none of this matters anyways cause we're just burning our way into prosperity for the foreseeable future.