Bjorn LomborgVarmennettu tili

I’ve been criticized for cherry-picking. Really? I show going vegetarian cuts 1-9% of emissions, use central 4.3%. Half lost in rebound, so ~2% actual reduction My critics say 1-9% should be 1.5-9%. They cherry-pick 9%, round up to 10%, ignore rebound and claim 10%pic.twitter.com/hZIdcrMazv

I use a meta-study (not cherry-picking lowest or highest number): going vegetarian most likely reduces emissions 540kgCO₂e, 4.3% of per cap industrial emissions of 12,440kgCO₂e (20-35% of *diet emissions*) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614012931 …pic.twitter.com/8SV0MN6Yt7

Moreover, bc vegetarian diet cheaper, changing leaves you more money to spend on other stuff, increasing your other emissions. This is “rebound.” One Swedish study finds this most likely to halve benefit to 2.1% rather than 4.15% (192kgCO₂e rebound) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915002153 …pic.twitter.com/UdErei2n6i

They correctly point out that only two studies of the 7 studies in the meta-review include emissions from deforestation They then take one of these studies to show that going vegetarian cuts 10% in personal emissionspic.twitter.com/PKBdCy7f4V