Eating meat creates four times more greenhouse gases than being vegan, landmark study finds
Eating meat creates four times more greenhouse gases than being vegan, landmark study finds
Meat-free eating found to have much lower environmental impact on land use, water pollution risk, water use and biodiversity loss
You're viewing a single thread.
Having fewer children is the number one thing you can do. And it's not even close.
I mean, do the other things anyway if you like. They can't hurt. They may even save you money. But they won't save an overpopulated planet.
You have a link to that study?
Because every time this comes up, it almost invariably boils down to one of:
- We have had increasing amounts of CO2 over the years and population has increased over they ears. And correlation implies causation!
- Children/elderly/people are massive CO2 sinks because they drive/are driven, require power to use their tablets, eat meat, etc
Because, if it weren't for our successful attempts to remove as much habitable land as possible, the planet would not be "overpopulated". Population density is not at all spread out and there is an insane amount of unused land that doesn't even require deforestation to use. But between artificial housing crises and the need to flee "the boonies" if you aren't the right shade of whatever skin color the fascists in that region, we instead overpopulate very specific regions.
Thanks.
From a quick skim of "hey, the one child policy was totally a great idea, right?"
we relied on a study which quantified future emissions of descendants based on historical rates, based on heredity (Murtaugh and Schlax 2009). In this approach, half of a child's emissions are assigned to each parent, as well as one quarter of that child's offspring (the grandchildren) and so forth. This is consistent with our use of research employing the fullest possible life cycle approach in order to capture the magnitude of emissions decisions.
As well as almost their entire discussion section being "people won't do stuff anyway", this is very much category 2. Having fewer children reduces emissions because the study is misleading rolling all lifetime emissions into the child regardless of any other mitigation strategies that don't involve implementing the hellscape China has had for decades. To oversimplify a bit, they basically measured out 100% of the data, then added another category that doubles up on all of that. And 100% is obviously greater than 5% (because it includes it).
You can just as easily say "What if we nuke a few countries?" or "What if we Thanos snap the planet?" is more effective than people taking fewer flights... because there will be fewer people to take flights. It is the end goal but with less personal responsibility and more babies being murdered for not being the desired gender.
I don't understand why you have having such a hard time understanding that more mouths to feed, house, clothe, and provide energy for increases co2 emissions. No one is suggesting murdering children here. Having fewer children can be accomplished easily by using birth control such as condoms or the pill or any other method available.
First and foremost: This is literally the rationale behind the one child policy. A policy that caused incalculable pain and suffering in China and continues to haunt the populace.
Second: Because it is just a bad "solution". It only works on the order of generations (and since we may not even have decades at this point) and it is inherently just piggy backing off ACTUAL solutions.
And third: Because it isn't even a solution to begin with. All the actions that it allegedly is so much better then are actually the actions being taken. Just not in any meaningful timespan because it is your hypothetical child 20 years down the line taking one less flight to DC.
For example: You can choose to have fewer children and when they grow up and that will reduce the amount of fuel you spent driving to the store repeatedly, driving them to school every day, catching a short flight one state over, etc. Or... you can just prioritize riding bicycles and using public transportation for day to day. And if the time it would take to drive to your destination versus fly are about the same (common on the East Coast)... just drive (it is also generally cheaper).
The former accomplishes nothing in the short term. The latter accomplishes all of what the former did, and then some because you are actually lowering YOUR emissions too, while having immediate benefits.
It is a bad study built on faulty premises. And it is being used in a misleading manner to push a narrative that justifies people not changing anything.
Because:
- Food: If only there were more sustainable diets. Like eating less meat and more vegan protein sources and the like.
- Shelter: Multi-family housing and mixed zoning allow for MUCH more efficient construction and reduce the need for cars. Also, existing housing can be retrofitted with more efficient insulation and the like
- Energy: if only there were some form of clean energy...
And the best part? You can do that. Your kids can do that. And the entirety of the cast of The L-Word can do that. So even people who might not be planning on having children can do their part to maybe prevent humanity from being wiped out before those hypothetical kids even get their learner's permits.
You're latching on to what China did as an example and it forms the majority of your argument. I dont see anyone here suggesting we adopt a one child policy like they did, only reduce the amount of children being born.
Yes one could arguably bike everywhere and it would reduce your stress on the environment than if you drove everywhere. One could also argue having fewer people also reduces stress on the environment as well. Both will do the same thing, one to a greater degree.
It honestly sounds like you have children and are trying to justify your behavior despite knowing the negative impacts.
Jesus wept.
No, I don't have children. In large part because I don't think my generation has a future, let alone the next.
But one last time (maybe you'll read it this time rather than just intentionally plugging your ears to be smug over whatever you are on): Even if we ignore that every single benefit associated with "have fewer kids" is something that can and should be done right now. Those metrics are based on lifetime CO2 production by the child. So you MAYBE are making a difference in 20 or 40 years. But you are doing jack all in the timeframe where... we probably still can't stop the upcoming disaster. But we can at least try.
I think the problem is, lets say 20 years from now, we now have a carbon negative economy. If we just look at the past trend lines, we would have to look at the future trend lines "each kid you have reduces carbon output by..."
In the long run, its an over simplistic representation.
Double post. Ignore this.
It is not an opinion to state that fewer people equals less consumption.
Edit: Pardon, but if those of you mindlessly downvoting could explain your point instead of just being disagreeable, it would be appreciated.
Apologies if you thought I was calling this an "opinion". I very much was not. I was accusing it of being misleading data that ignores the fundamentals of (statistics based) science.
Other than the precise numbers contained in the infographic, which aspect of the original post ignores the fundamentals of science? Especially now that you've also agreed that fewer people equals less consumption.
It's not "one thing" option, you can do most of those, even all of them.
So what should I do with this extra kid?
Eating meat creates four times more greenhouse gases than being vegan, study finds.
Kind of like saying the best birth control is abstinence. Technically true, but most people are going to have kids anyway. As long as we stay around replacement rate, which most western countries are at or below, having kids is a good thing so that society can keep going as people (ideally) retire. So while we're all still here, how can humans lessen our emissions. That's the question.
I think that the issue is that everyone here is saying "everyone should do X", and that just doesn't make sense. Maybe everyone should just pick one thing on the chart and do that to improve the world as a whole? "People will have kids anyway, so that's not a good measure" could easily be reframed as "People will have meat anyway, so that's not a good measure".
We all have a sacrifice we're willing to make to be better, and we don't mind doing. Some people don't want to have kids, so they contribute that way. Some people don't want to eat meat anyway, so they contribute that way. If you want to do better, pick one thing and start doing it, even if it's not perfect.
Sure, but I don't think that a ribeye deserves the same untouchable nature as continuing the human species. Especially because if we get too many people choosing the child free route, suddenly your retirement plan will need to include a bullet. We don't have to all go full vegan, but would it be the end of the world to have a passing relationship with beans, or at least give the impossible whopper a try.
Me and my childless girlfriend can ride our bikes to the Steakhouse with a clear conscious.
The graphics 58,6 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per Year and Child are 266,25% higher than the average americans 16 tonnes and 1365% higher than the global average of 4 tonnes.
What are the assumptions on that hypothetical child's lifestyle? Will it roll coal and eat beef jerky 24/7?
The Guardian article says thatfigure was calculated by totting up the emissions of the child and all their descendants, then dividing this total by the parent’s lifespan. Each parent was ascribed 50% of the child’s emissions, 25% of their grandchildren’s emissions and so on.
Considering the global total fertility rate dropping from now 2.42 childs per woman to 1.66 in 2100, a global sex ratio of 101:100, average age at first child of 28 and a global life expectancy of currently 74.3 years (82.1 in 2100) my crude calculation would look like this:
0.5 * 4t * (74.3 + 28 * ((82.1 - 74.3) / (2100 - 2023))) / 74.3 + 0.25 * 4t * (74.3 + 56 * ( 7.8 / 77 )) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 28 * ((2.42 - 1.66) / (2100 - 2023))) / (201 / 100) + 0.125 * 4t * (74.3 + 84 * ( 7.8 / 77 )) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 56 * ( 0.76 / 77 )) / 2.01 + 0.0625 * 4t * (74.3 + 112 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 84 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01 + 0.0313 * 4t * (74.3 + 140 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 112 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01 + 0.0156 * 4t * (74.3 + 168 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 140 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01 + 0.0078 * 4t * (74.3 + 196 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 168 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01 + 0.0039 * 4t * (74.3 + 224 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 196 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01 ==================================================================================================================================== = 2.076t + 1.148t + 0.518t + 0.228t + 0.1229t + 0.0634t + 0.0327t + 0.0168t + 0.0087t + 0.0045t = 4.2191t @ 10 generations = 4,2238t @ 25 generations = 4.2238t @ 50 generationsEven if i quadrupled those 4.23t to match the US citizens average CO2 footprint, 16,89t doesn't even come close to the claimed 58,6.
where's my mistake?
pS: for the calculations I fixated the birth rate at 1,66 starting in generation 5 as well as the age with an estimated maximum of 123 years starting in generation 18.
I would love to know the impact of just raising the kid to the age of 4, I did some math and the C02 needed just for the materials for 4 years of diapers is over 100 lbs of C02 alone. That doesn't even include all the C02 the factory and workers use to make them.
Permanently Deleted
Would you like to know the secret of Soylent Green?
I know a vegan with like 6 kids who tries to lecture me for eating meat.
I lecte you about drinking strawberry milk wrong!!1!!1!!
putting the strawberry pulver in almond milk is better because almond milk is a lot thicker what really fits the strawberry taste. But i would not reccomend drinking it raw because i dont really like itAt least here somemmilk alternatives are cheaper then the cheap normal milk so it could even be profitable to test them out or "gasp" to mix them with milk (i did not test it but could be interesting)
"Overpopulation" is simply one perspective on the problem of overconsumption. It's the lazy option, because esp. childfree people can pretend they tOTallY would've had 5 children, but they valiantly put the planet before their personal wishes. Incidentally, those same people then do nothing else and smugly point at other people. The truth is you didn't want to have children anyway, so you saved 0 CO2. I say this as a childfree person myself.
We can either reduce consumption or reduce population. I find only one of these has a chance to happen ethically, without, you know, genocide.
This graphic indicates not eating meat saves 0.82 tonnes of CO2. Going car free is 2.4. So yet again, it seems like the vegetarian option is another "fix our problems so we don't have to".
I often eat vegetarian meals, but it's not easy or cost efficient. I have gone car free and my 2012 Mustang GT has sat in the garage for a year now. I have one child, not 3. I'll stop meat entirely when I see larger polluters do their part. I can't save the world alone.