this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
499 points (91.2% liked)
People Twitter
5383 readers
1464 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I was under the impression that cargo ships were actually pretty efficient due to their absolutely massive capacity. Compared to things like airplanes, I mean.
They are efficient (cargo vs fuel consumption). They also go through my regular car's full gas tank in about 30 seconds. Less ships means less fuel burned. If we produce locally, transportation is not needed.
Still just 2% of global CO2 emissions
While animal agriculture is responsible for 20% and eating plants directly instead of feeding them to animals first would use 75% less land which means we could grow forests at here that store carbon.
The original commenter here just conveniently ignored that though.
all of agriculture is only about 20%. animal agriculture is a subset of that. don't lie
Every peer reviewed study on it says between 14.5 and 19.6% is animal agriculture.
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livestock-dont-contribute-14-5-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions
not according to the fao
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector
thanx
Which is not peer-reviewed and they have a conflict of interest
they seem authoritative.
Do they carry as much as your car? lol