In 2015, food-system emissions amounted to 18 Gt CO2 equivalent per year globally, representing 34% of total GHG emissions. The largest contribution came from agriculture and land use/land-use change activities (71%), with the remaining were from supply chain activities: retail, transport, consumption, fuel production, waste management, industrial processes and packaging.
That’s fair the numbers indeed don’t add up, my graphic uses CO2 while nature.com uses:
“estimating greenhouse gas (GHG; CO2, CH4, N2O, fluorinated gases) emissions” comparing apples to oranges.
But even in the nature.com study my original stance still stands, eating meat does not contribute to 2/3 of emissions. Yes it is an important factor but so is insulation & transportation.
Your graphic uses the same larger type of metric of greenhouse gases as does the Nature article. If you click on the greenhouse gas equivalents bit in the header where the figure came from, it makes that clear:
Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, but not the only one. To capture all greenhouse gas emissions, researchers express them in “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO₂eq). This takes all greenhouse gases into account, not just CO₂.
You’re not wrong about meat not comprising two-thirds of any person’s total GHG emissions, and I’ve never suggested otherwise. I just wanted to provide a better source of information than that graphic.
How is it a better source? It uses language that tricks most vegans in thinking 2/3s of pollution is from eating meat! I remember watching vegan documentaries and getting that same statistic.
The myworldindata shows the values in “tonnes ofcarbon dioxide-equivalents per person per year” apples to oranges.
It’s a Nature article; there’s no better source for information. Not sure where you’re getting the 2/3s idea or meat idea from that article–it does not use such language.
Food = total GHG emissions * 0.34
Agriculture = Food * 0.71
(supply chain activities: retail, transport, consumption, fuel production, waste management, industrial processes and packaging) = Food * 0.29
Learn to read
I know how to: .71 * 18 = 12.78 Gt, which is more than double what your graph ascribes to agriculture.
Also, there’s no need to be rude, even if I had been wrong.
That’s fair the numbers indeed don’t add up, my graphic uses CO2 while nature.com uses: “estimating greenhouse gas (GHG; CO2, CH4, N2O, fluorinated gases) emissions” comparing apples to oranges.
But even in the nature.com study my original stance still stands, eating meat does not contribute to 2/3 of emissions. Yes it is an important factor but so is insulation & transportation.
0.34 * 0.71 ≠ 0.66
Your graphic uses the same larger type of metric of greenhouse gases as does the Nature article. If you click on the greenhouse gas equivalents bit in the header where the figure came from, it makes that clear:
You’re not wrong about meat not comprising two-thirds of any person’s total GHG emissions, and I’ve never suggested otherwise. I just wanted to provide a better source of information than that graphic.
How is it a better source? It uses language that tricks most vegans in thinking 2/3s of pollution is from eating meat! I remember watching vegan documentaries and getting that same statistic.
The myworldindata shows the values in “tonnes ofcarbon dioxide-equivalents per person per year” apples to oranges.
It’s a Nature article; there’s no better source for information. Not sure where you’re getting the 2/3s idea or meat idea from that article–it does not use such language.
the article is poorly methodized, and should not be considered reliable