But wait a minute: of course, all studies should take all issues into account (they never do) That’s why you use a meta-study (all papers leave out something, but taking them together eliminates cherry-picking)
-
-
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
Näytä tämä ketju -
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)
Näytä tämä ketju -
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
Näytä tämä ketju -
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
Näytä tämä ketju -
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
Näytä tämä ketju -
Publisher
@ConversationUK wants to be “a place for intelligent discussion.” Surprisingly, they never approached me before distributing this questionable analysisNäytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.