Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Going vegetarian only reduces emissions by 2.1% 4% from the food, but rebound (vegetarian food cheaper => increase in other consumption => slightly higher CO₂ emissions) lowers this reduction by 1.89%. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915002153?via%3Dihub …https://twitter.com/MariGriffin/status/1053780228118642688 …
So depressing to see people claim 'oh, veggi impact must be bigger' but without documentation Metastudy shows reduction using LCA *without* rebound to be 540kg CO₂e/yr (table 1), or about 4.3% of OECD CO₂e emissions https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614012931?via%3Dihub …
Emissions are irrelevant in this sense. The point is that how much land would we need to produce meat for 10 billion people with average US or Danish meat diet?
The bothersome part of climate change politics is that people always manage to smuggle in their alternate agendas.
Signing accords and declarations works, too!
How about the methane reduction? And water?
Methane is irrelevant. Its lifetime is 10 years in the atmosphere. CO2 lasts1000+ years (IPCC).
This is an LCA, consistent with LCA metastudy which shows similar result: reduction *without* rebound to be 540kg CO₂e/yr (table 1), or about 4.3% of OECD CO₂e emissions. How is LCA not the right way to study this? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614012931?via%3Dihub …
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
