This one bugs me so much. Like I'm not even aiming for full veganism. Just... less meat.
No.
"But I like it!" Irrelevant to the problem.
"Other people are worse". Irrelevant to the problem unless you want to go start doing vigilante justice.
"Other people are worse". Irrelevant to the problem unless you want to go start doing vigilante justice.
I wouldn't say irrelevant to the problem... Most of the stuff we as individuals can do, amount to trying to put out a tire fire by clapping... Even millions of us won't make almost any difference, specially when you have 10 assholes who, instead of clapping are actively pouring gas on the fire
I'm 100% on board with the clapping... But I'm not kidding myselft that we are going to save ourselves until we eliminate the firebugs
Even that alone is enough to make a quite decent impact.
that image is based on poore-nemecek 2018 which has terrible methodology.
Hm. I would be interested to learn why, exactly. If it has terrible methodology, why is it constantly referenced and why hasn't a better one been done since then?
Or is there a better one that nobody just uses?
And how should the data look, because most of every other source I can find also agrees that beef is the worst (or possibly on the second spot after lamb) as it comes to CO2 per kg.
the sources on that paper are labyrinthine, but i recall pulling up the water use for cattle out of it, and they attributed all of the water used in the production of all the food given to cattle to the production of the cattle, which might make sense if you don't think about it for even a few seconds more. we know that there are things that we grow that we use, and then discard other parts. maybe crop "seconds"; that is things that we grew thinking we would eat it but we pulled it to early or too late or mashed it up pretty bad during harvest or whatever. we are actually conserving water use by feeding these things to cattle, but it isn't credited to cattle, it's counted against their total water use.
that was just the water use for california dairy cattle. if even 10% of the study is done this sloppily, how much do you trust that study?
Greenpeace: we should save the planet!
Me: great, let's build nuclear power so we can shut down fossile fuels
Greenpeace: ....No
Too late. Somewhere so sunny can get a lot of solor quickly. Building nuclear power plants takes time and releases a lot of CO2. Batteries and solor now now. Cheapest power too.
Only too late because Greenpeace stopped it for decades. Hope you have a plan for your solar waste. Cheapest because you just let China throw it away for you.
Cheapest because the fuel is for free. Waste plan should be recycling.
Go ahead and show me your solar recycling plant. I want to see it. Must have a carbon footprint lower than nuclear or you lose.
You as also don't want to be burning coal for a decade while you build a nuclear power plant. Then it's expensive to run compared to solar too. The CO2 costs of waiting for nuclear should be included for nuclear too.
I know it's a new area. I am involved with it. Now show me the one that has a lower carbon footprint today. Including batteries btw no cheating
That's part of the issue with nuclear, it's not today. It's a decade to do, power coal in the mean time, pouring concrete which also cause a load of CO2. When it's finally running, it's clean, but expensive. In the mean time you could have solar running 8 years and it is cheaper to power and install. Nuclear is going to struggle to compete. Until fusion, but even that, if it ever comes, might not be cheap enough compared. Cheap, fast and clean wins.
Thanks for admitting you have nothing with a lower carbon footprint today. It was very big of you.
As I said, if you want to start today, solar is without doubt the way to go. If you are dealing in decades, and much more money, nuclear becomes an option. But in the time building it, you're poluting and it's not clear it's even cleaner long run discounting that, let alone including it.
Those nuclear power plants won't come online for a decade at least. It's better to spend the money on renewables and storage.
And if we started building them a decade ago we would have them now. We need to start building them now, because it's only gonna be worse in 10 years.
By then it will be too late, especially considering the extra CO2 that building them will create with no electricity provided at all
That is hilariously naive. The world is gonna keep turning either way. People aren't just gonna suddenly all up and disappear. And the climate isn't like a thing where you reach a certain point and you just give up. We can lessen how bad things will be. Making nuclear now is the right choice, so that in 10 years we can cut as many polluting forms of energy as we can.
I'd rather spend $10 billion on renewables that would start coming online almost immediately than lock that money up in a plant that won't start recouping the carbon debt from its construction in a decade.
Renewables don't work and produce too much waste.
Yet another reason to invest most resources into nuclear worldwide.
Greenpeace advocated for this back in the 1970s and that's why we have an enormous wind and solar industry today. The Greenpeace lobby was just too damned powerful.
The reason we didn't build any reactors after the 1970s is a combination of nuclear disarmament and slow return on investment, not Greenpeace. If Greenpeace had that much power they would have been able to shut down the oil and gas industry, too.
Greenpeace: …No
Senator Greenpeace and President Sierra Club made Westinghouse bankrupt itself trying to build the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia.
Everything is a joke to you so no surprise that would be your standard.
Well, according to kissmyOSfeddit, we don’t even need to eat less meat. We can sous-vide it on the sidewalk now! Sounds like a serious win-win to me.
It's the raising of the animals before they're slaughtered that's the problem, not the cooking after they're dead.
I have decreased my meat consumption to about a third than it used to be in recent years. I'm not qualified to do an in-depth study about all the ramifications of the CO2 emissions, but agriculture being just about 11.2% of all emissions sounds like eating less cow won't cut it to "save ourselves"
I have a hunch that shit will hit the fan and there will be a massive reduction in CO2 emissions because of a supply chain failure. Third world countries produce the vast majority of "low manufacturing complexity" products, which will be made even more unsustainable if those regions become a scorched earth. That, coupled with a lesser incentive to travel due to an adverse climatic situation, and a trend in population decrease due to an overall quality of life degradation, will really be the reason why we will reduce emissions, simply because things stop working and become unsustainable
Either way, I don't think it's possible to really predict the future and even less so in such a complex society where technology might be a game changer all of the sudden, so my opinion is not really that valid. Even educated estimates using proper statistics/data cannot guess the implications of new wars, AI, new scientific breakthroughs etc
My family: We should save the planet!
Me: great, let’s all eat less meat!
My family: . . . No
This one bugs me so much. Like I'm not even aiming for full veganism. Just... less meat.
No.
"But I like it!" Irrelevant to the problem.
"Other people are worse". Irrelevant to the problem unless you want to go start doing vigilante justice.
I wouldn't say irrelevant to the problem... Most of the stuff we as individuals can do, amount to trying to put out a tire fire by clapping... Even millions of us won't make almost any difference, specially when you have 10 assholes who, instead of clapping are actively pouring gas on the fire
I'm 100% on board with the clapping... But I'm not kidding myselft that we are going to save ourselves until we eliminate the firebugs
First step: just eat less beef.
Even that alone is enough to make a quite decent impact.
that image is based on poore-nemecek 2018 which has terrible methodology.
Hm. I would be interested to learn why, exactly. If it has terrible methodology, why is it constantly referenced and why hasn't a better one been done since then?
Or is there a better one that nobody just uses?
And how should the data look, because most of every other source I can find also agrees that beef is the worst (or possibly on the second spot after lamb) as it comes to CO2 per kg.
the sources on that paper are labyrinthine, but i recall pulling up the water use for cattle out of it, and they attributed all of the water used in the production of all the food given to cattle to the production of the cattle, which might make sense if you don't think about it for even a few seconds more. we know that there are things that we grow that we use, and then discard other parts. maybe crop "seconds"; that is things that we grew thinking we would eat it but we pulled it to early or too late or mashed it up pretty bad during harvest or whatever. we are actually conserving water use by feeding these things to cattle, but it isn't credited to cattle, it's counted against their total water use.
that was just the water use for california dairy cattle. if even 10% of the study is done this sloppily, how much do you trust that study?
Greenpeace: we should save the planet!
Me: great, let's build nuclear power so we can shut down fossile fuels
Greenpeace: ....No
Too late. Somewhere so sunny can get a lot of solor quickly. Building nuclear power plants takes time and releases a lot of CO2. Batteries and solor now now. Cheapest power too.
Only too late because Greenpeace stopped it for decades. Hope you have a plan for your solar waste. Cheapest because you just let China throw it away for you.
Cheapest because the fuel is for free. Waste plan should be recycling.
Go ahead and show me your solar recycling plant. I want to see it. Must have a carbon footprint lower than nuclear or you lose.
It's a new area, but there are companies : https://www.recyclesolar.co.uk/
Life cycle comparing isn't as simple as your thinking: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421506002758 Happy to look if you have a unbiased source for life cycle emissions comparison.
But costs and time is a no brainer: https://www.energysage.com/about-clean-energy/nuclear-energy/solar-vs-nuclear/
You as also don't want to be burning coal for a decade while you build a nuclear power plant. Then it's expensive to run compared to solar too. The CO2 costs of waiting for nuclear should be included for nuclear too.
I know it's a new area. I am involved with it. Now show me the one that has a lower carbon footprint today. Including batteries btw no cheating
That's part of the issue with nuclear, it's not today. It's a decade to do, power coal in the mean time, pouring concrete which also cause a load of CO2. When it's finally running, it's clean, but expensive. In the mean time you could have solar running 8 years and it is cheaper to power and install. Nuclear is going to struggle to compete. Until fusion, but even that, if it ever comes, might not be cheap enough compared. Cheap, fast and clean wins.
Thanks for admitting you have nothing with a lower carbon footprint today. It was very big of you.
As I said, if you want to start today, solar is without doubt the way to go. If you are dealing in decades, and much more money, nuclear becomes an option. But in the time building it, you're poluting and it's not clear it's even cleaner long run discounting that, let alone including it.
As a bonus, solar is safer too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
So nuclear just isn't the choice to make in 2024.
God victory is so sweet.
Those nuclear power plants won't come online for a decade at least. It's better to spend the money on renewables and storage.
And if we started building them a decade ago we would have them now. We need to start building them now, because it's only gonna be worse in 10 years.
By then it will be too late, especially considering the extra CO2 that building them will create with no electricity provided at all
That is hilariously naive. The world is gonna keep turning either way. People aren't just gonna suddenly all up and disappear. And the climate isn't like a thing where you reach a certain point and you just give up. We can lessen how bad things will be. Making nuclear now is the right choice, so that in 10 years we can cut as many polluting forms of energy as we can.
I'd rather spend $10 billion on renewables that would start coming online almost immediately than lock that money up in a plant that won't start recouping the carbon debt from its construction in a decade.
Renewables don't work and produce too much waste.
Yet another reason to invest most resources into nuclear worldwide.
Greenpeace advocated for this back in the 1970s and that's why we have an enormous wind and solar industry today. The Greenpeace lobby was just too damned powerful.
The reason we didn't build any reactors after the 1970s is a combination of nuclear disarmament and slow return on investment, not Greenpeace. If Greenpeace had that much power they would have been able to shut down the oil and gas industry, too.
Senator Greenpeace and President Sierra Club made Westinghouse bankrupt itself trying to build the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia.
Meanwhile nobody ask who is blazing a trail into the modern nuclear age
It's China! (Said like Trump saying China)
Ghina
nuclear clowns are the least funny
Everything is a joke to you so no surprise that would be your standard.
Well, according to kissmyOSfeddit, we don’t even need to eat less meat. We can sous-vide it on the sidewalk now! Sounds like a serious win-win to me.
It's the raising of the animals before they're slaughtered that's the problem, not the cooking after they're dead.
I have decreased my meat consumption to about a third than it used to be in recent years. I'm not qualified to do an in-depth study about all the ramifications of the CO2 emissions, but agriculture being just about 11.2% of all emissions sounds like eating less cow won't cut it to "save ourselves"
I have a hunch that shit will hit the fan and there will be a massive reduction in CO2 emissions because of a supply chain failure. Third world countries produce the vast majority of "low manufacturing complexity" products, which will be made even more unsustainable if those regions become a scorched earth. That, coupled with a lesser incentive to travel due to an adverse climatic situation, and a trend in population decrease due to an overall quality of life degradation, will really be the reason why we will reduce emissions, simply because things stop working and become unsustainable
Either way, I don't think it's possible to really predict the future and even less so in such a complex society where technology might be a game changer all of the sudden, so my opinion is not really that valid. Even educated estimates using proper statistics/data cannot guess the implications of new wars, AI, new scientific breakthroughs etc