Bjorn LomborgVarmennettu tili

But what about rebound? Going vegetarian frees up resources you then spend on other products, increasing your emissions. This is well-described in literature, and can often lead to much lower emission reductions (or even increases) e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261732382X …

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

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)