Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Well done: Ward quotes a study that doesn't even *once* mention vegetarian to 'disprove' impact of vegetarian diet Swedish study use LCA, similar to LCA metastudy showing 4.3% reduction *before* rebound (table 1, 540kgCO₂e/yr, 12.5t CO₂e for OECD) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614012931?via%3Dihub …https://twitter.com/ret_ward/status/1054022917695000576 …
Interestingly, the Science study (which only has a 'vegan' category) seems to have about the same vegan impact for the world (6.6Gt CO₂e) as estimated for vegan in metastudy (760kg CO₂e *7.6bn=)5.8Gt CO₂e https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614012931?via%3Dihub …
So, this seems to confirm my point. Vegetarian about 2% (after rebound), vegan slightly higher (maybe 2.5-3%).
Vegetarian/vegan is only a larger part of global emissions (10% before rebound), because most people so poor, food is their main emission So, claims on going vegetarian is not mostly about rich people (2%) but about asking poor people to go vegetarian
And Table 1 shows that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for a vegetarian diet is 20-35%. Show your working if you think the reduction is only 4.3%.
Bob, you have to read what the table says: It is 20-35% *of GHG emissions from the diet* equivalent to 4.3% of a person's total emissions (if you had read my tweet, the calculation was there for you to understand: 540kgCO₂e/yr, 12.5t CO₂e for OECD = 4.3%)pic.twitter.com/5ObqlCcIFP
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
