Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.
https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption
Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview
If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌
Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.
What was the reduction in beef consumption world wide compared to the reduction in ghg?
dam. if only there were charts that show meat production and ghge
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
So you are comparing a single year which had a 1% decrease in global beef consumption (1995 to 1996) and using that information to claim that beef doesn’t cause ghg?
i’m saying abstaining from beef can’t causally decrease ghge
If you look at the two charts you listed they correlate very heavily with eachother
check 1995-1996
Yes a single blip where there was a 1% decrease in beef without a corresponding drop in GhG that in that same year they had a bunch of cows that were grown to maturity and then slaughtered.
I went a step further though I downloaded the CSV files and ran a correlation on them using excels CORREL function and they had a 0.98911 correlation
it’s a 1% drop in total meat production. beef is just a portion of that. The whole reason for the blip though, was beef production.