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.
For someone who seems so righteous and careful about saying the right thing, I think it’s funny you end with “telling 8 billion people to eat more or less of something” when that’s an obvious exaggeration on your part. Global meat consumption is highly skewed. For example, apparently, the US consumes 21% of the world’s meat (world population review, which cites FAO, 2010) yet accounts for about 4% of the world population.
I’m advocating for a method to actually improve outcomes, and, yes, lampooning the simplistic answers offered here. but if the answers are more complex, there is not any nuance or further explanation offered here. the data gathering and analysis methods offered are flawed, and it doesn’t take a degree in statistics or environmental science to understand this.
you’ve latched onto one glib comment I’ve made while glossing over the real methodological missteps.
It’s a “glib comment” you’re making to further discredit the study. I could be wrong but I don’t think you’ve posted any actual studies that talk about what’s wrong with the Poore Nemecek article. It was published in 2018 so there should be plenty.
Instead, you say you “detailed” what’s wrong with the study when you, at best, gave a short overview. Then you made exaggerations to further discredit the study. You also say the study is so bad “it doesn’t take a degree in statistics or environmental science” to understand why it’s so bad.
You could very well be right but I just see someone puffing up their chest and not actually using intellectual methods to convey their point of view while expertly pretending to be doing that.
simply reading the LCA studies cited by poore and nemecek will show they are misusing the data.
Surely within the 6000+ articles that cite it there must be a great study going to town on Poore and Nemecek, then.
or you could read their own citations.
I thought you were the one advocating for better methods? Pretty lazy advocate lol. I’m just challenging you and … nothing.
I told you where to find the information. I can’t make you read it.
You’re saying a study cited 6000+ times is so bad but you can’t produce a single well cited article that critiques it yet it is so obviously bad that anyone – without a degree in environmental science or statistics – can easily go throw the cited LCA studies and go “fuck this shit stinks”? Give me a fuckin break.