Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
1) How is it relevant Swedish paper relies on data from 2006? Ironically, both their favorite papers rely heavily on data from 2006: Hoolohan’s LCA estimates are from 2006 and 2008, Meier estimates food intake for 2006
2) Correct Swedish study not include deforestation, but irrelevant: I don’t use the study’s estimate of going vegetarian (though it falls right in the middle of meta-study’s interval at 389kgCO₂e) I use Swedish study for rebound. Deforestation has *nothing* to do with rebound
3) They cite Swedish study’s very honest description of limitations to estimates of CO₂e reduction from going vegetarian“ (similar arguments would apply to all the studies in metastudy) But again, this has *nothing* to do with rebound
Indeed, the Swedish study explicitly shows how *any* realistic modeling of rebound means a diminishment of the reduction from going vegetarian. My critics simply chose to ignore this
Ironically, my critics’ favorite article, Hoolohan, explicitly backs up the rebound point: Instead of the Swedish finding that going vegetarian reduces costs by 1.89%, Hoolohan finds it reduces costs by 3%, allowing for 3% other purchasespic.twitter.com/0dDgFZajJM
The rebound effect of 3% more spending on everything else is estimated by assuming proportional spending on all other products (Swedish article shows this is likely a slight underestimate), approximately 373kgCO₂e (=3%*12440)
So their own, favorite article indicates a *higher* rebound effect than what I show But despite a lot of verbiage, they simply ignore the rebound effect
tl;dr: Going vegetarian cuts your greenhouse emissions ~2% Critics cherry-pick studies and ignore economics, hence exaggerate impact of going vegetarian about 5xpic.twitter.com/ZMwadmWy24
Addendum: This discussion question of likely size of impact – unlikely 2.1% exactly correct answer. But based on best estimate from meta-study along with best estimate for rebound Picking the absolutely highest number and ignoring rebound is extremely likely to be exaggerated
Publisher @ConversationUK wants to be “a place for intelligent discussion.” Surprisingly, they never approached me before distributing this questionable analysis
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
