Comment on YSK that apart from not having a car, the single greatest thing you can do for the climate is simply eating less red meat

• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  poore-nemecek is conducting scientific malpractice by combining LCA studies as they have. the problem with Netherlands, admittedly, is more of a feeling of misgiving, and I don’t know if there is any study that properly accounts for reclaimed agricultural water, or of that’s even a reasonable thing to do when your end product is a simple statistic like land use, water use, or ghge.

  I think the crest thing to do is probably look at inefficiencies in any specific operation and help them improve, but that doesn’t give simplistic answers like telling 8 billion people to eat more or less of something.

  source

  • LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      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 nuisance 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 matched onto one glib comment I’ve made while closing over the real methodological missteps.

      source

      • LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments