Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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
No need to ask the poor to be vegetarian. Most poor already are vegetarian by fate and not by choice.
Yes Bjorn, i just spent a week at the @WorldFoodPrize and @GlobalFarmerNet as Oz rep and what EU policy is trying to do to African poor people/farmers is really a crime against humanity 
#SocialLicenceCrime
Some veggies not great for environment. Iceberg lettuce requires lots of water and ongoing refrigeration, including during transportation, for scant nutritional value.
Which source do you use for total global emissions? Must be 66Gt CO₂e, which make 6.6Gt CO₂e 10% of it. And then rebound brings you down to 2%? Same science article also says 4.8Gt CO₂e for halving meat consumption and replacing with vegetables.
20 years of good ideas from @BjornLomborg How does his voice seem both so unique and so reasonable on these issues?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
