this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
292 points (92.7% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5298 readers
636 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
292
Beef produces 85 kg CO2e per kg of food. Tofu produces 2.9 kg CO2e per kg of food. (ourworldindata.org)
submitted 7 months ago by testeronious to c/[email protected]
119 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

the conclusion is "beef produces 85kg co2e". it's calculating exactly what I said.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

the paper tries to quantify all the inputs and outputs for foods, but it fails to actually calculate either the actualy outputs (like non-food animal products), or the actual costs of the inputs (many of which would be waste products)

Emphasis mine, of course. The remaining four-fifths of your comment focussed entirely on inputs too. The paper does not do this and never intended or claimed to. It collates the work of other papers that did it. Why tell such an obvious lie? Your comment is literally right there

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

this is splitting hairs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Is it fuck. You complained about their methodology and then went on to cite an example of a problematic methodology that they simply did not use. You have not read the paper.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I have and you are splitting hairs about this

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Alright, point me to the page of the study or the line of the database that counts the full water usage of cottonseed in beef production. Should be easy for you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

you know as well as I do that the meta analysis is depending on studies that do exactly what I said, and relying on papers that employ a flawed methodology is, itself, a flawed methodology.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I already gave you an example of one of the papers it's relying on, and it clearly isn't doing that. Which ones are?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I'm on mobile rn. can you link the bibliography