isn’t the media at least partially to blame. they’ve been all but ignoring the greens forever, even though they give enough coverage to let us know that they know who they are and what tehy stand for. if the media started blitzing green candidates like they do republicans or democrats instead of republicans and democrats, don’t you think they’d do a lot better?
everything I’ve said here is true. but have a nice day
form an affinity group
companies that make things that are not consumed lose money and go out of business.
this couldn’t happen if production is caused by consumption. this means that companies that go out of business because the product isn’t consumed are companies that were always operating on the risk of the product might not be consumed. in fact, all companies fit this description. All production is made without a guarantee of return. we can’t say that the return causes it.
Without the consumption the activity would not have happened.
you can’t prove a counterfactual
production happens before purchases and an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past. ipso facto, consumption cannot be the cause of production.
dairy cattle live about 5 years, and then become beef, but a beef operation doesn’t keep the animals that long because there’s no point if they can graze them for a year and put em in a lot for 6 months.
I don’t see how it could have caused it. people chose to slash and burn the forest of their own volition. they have full agency in their decisions. if they’d have asked me, I would have said “don’t do that”. I can’t possibly be responsible for their choices
There is absolutely no way the level of meat, cheese, and eggs could be supported on animals just eating and using land in a natural state though.
ok. whether I eat it though, or not, won’t change whether the industry grows or shrinks.
I have seen one year grazine and few years in the feed lot.
it’s only a few months on a feedlot. beef cattle don’t usually live more than 18 months
The amazon rainforest was logged to create grazeland for cattle.
this is bad. it doesn’t make eating beef bad.
vegan being 1/1 usage of plant matter and chicken 1/3, pork 1/6., beef 1/14
assuming this is true, which I haven’t looked into the methodology, broadly speaking, we don’t feed animals plants and parts of plants that we want to eat. beef cattle graze most of their lives. soybeans are pressed for oil, and the byproduct is what is fed to livestock. sure, we grow alfalfa and feed corn, but I’m just not convinced it’s a bad use of resources: making food is good, and I don’t see anything wrong with eating beef or chicken or pork.
my goal was actually to get you to give me compelling data. I’m not quite sure how it ended up the other way around.
both the quotes I just gave are directly from papers referenced by poore and nemecek.
here’s another
LCA results can have high uncertainties because of the large amounts of measured and simulated data and the simplified modeling of complex en- vironmental cause-effect chains. Recent studies have highlighted the contribution that system as- sumptions and value choices can also make to overall uncertainty (36, 37). A number of quantita- tive uncertainty assessments are available (38) butare rarely used in practice. One of the key questions is, how much uncertainty is acceptable, depending on the application? In some cases, rough estimates of input values can be enough to identify supply- chain hotspots (39), but for other applications, such as product comparisons (37), the demands for more accurate values are higher. For some im- pact categories such as toxicity, very large differ- ences in inventory results are needed to statistically differentiate product systems, whereas for other categories, differences of a factor of two or less may be enough (40). LCA practitioners should al- ways attempt to manage the decision-maker’s expectations and clarify that LCA is not always a tool to provide a single answer, but rather one that permits comprehensive understanding of a problem and its possible solutions.
uh… I’m on my couch on mobile but I have a quote
First, it is often cited that LCA results should not be compared (Desjardins et al., 2012; Foster et al., 2006; McAuliffe et al., 2016; Röös et al., 2013) due to variation in methodology choices, functional units, as well as temporal and regional differences2. Second, no single comprehensive review was identified that adequately covers the breadth of fresh foods available to consumers and caterers. As Helle et al. (2013, p.12643) state ‘data availability and quality remain primary obstacles in diet-level environmental impact assessment’, while Pulkkinen et al. (2015) calls for the creation of a database that communicates data quality, uncertainty and variability to reliably differentiate between the GWP of food types. Previous studies have compiled LCA data to compare different foods (e.g. Audsley et al., 2009; Berners-Lee et al., 2012; Bradbear and Friel, 2011; de Vries and de Boer, 2010; Foster et al., 2006; Nijdam et al., 2012; Sonesson et al., 2010; Roy et al., 2009). While these are useful attempts, the identified studies are inadequate in the coverage of fresh foods available. Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) attempt to inform consumers of the environmental impacts (carbon, water and ecological footprint) of specific foods, however they also fall short in breadth of items covered at present. The most comprehensive attempt at carbon footprint labelling was performed by Tesco (2012), however failed to label key categories such as fresh fish, pork, lamb or beef before finishing in 2012 due to the scale of the labelling scheme and a lack of participation from other retailers (Head et al., 2013). Third, studies that do compare results may often present singular figures. Peters et al. (2010) and Röös et al. (2011) argue that a range of impacts should be reported from LCA’s to better represent the variety of environmental impacts, as opposed to a singular figure. Finally, there is a lack of synthesised open access LCA data in the public domain available to consumers to inform decision-making.
I’m not suggesting a Google search. I’m telling you to read the paper and the papers it references for it’s LCAs
I’m telling you to read a specific paper and it’s own references.
what does this edit mean?