How much of that food emissions is from beef though? Like even if you insist on still eating meat if you were to change to pork/chicken it would reduce emissions a lot.
Although might be right for Americans, they have 3x what we do here per capita. Should be easier for me if I just need to do around half of what the average person does to get under 2. So heat pump, eat minimal meat with plenty of grains and veg instead, cycle to work, probably already most of the way there.
Everything regarding Agriculture (not just in the US, look at how much of the russian harvest is just rotting on the fields this year because of the lack of fuel) is heavily dependent mostly on diesel fuel. All those large machines use lots of fuel, and they are used in every step - preparing the ground, fertilizing, planting and harvesting. The way the US is doing things, transportation also uses fuel for giant fleets of trucks for most of the distance - transportation by train exists, but suffers from decades of neglect and having to compete with subsidized fuel prices. If americans had to pay for fuel without externalizing costs, i’m sure that the train network would suddenly have enough resources to expand and do long overdue maintenance.
Sure, cattle is a huge part of the problem, but the above process is CO2-heavy even in areas where it would not have to be.
I find that everything related to meat and fish production produces 13.78% of global emissions excluding transport ([wikipedia] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_agriculture?wprov=sfti1)) or 53% of all agricultural emission, while the whole supply chain is 18% of agricultural emissions, thus 4.6% of total.
So meat production is by far the driver of agricultural emission, even if obviously the whole chain could become cleaner.
Additionally, all freight transport accounts for 30% of transport emissions, so a total of 6% of global emissions. So banning all camions would achieve half of what vegetarianism would achieve.
As i said, cattle is a huge part of the problem - i fully agree with you on that point. But the emissions are only one part of the equation: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_agriculture. The environmental effects of agriculture go much farther than their emissions, in many areas actively hindering reuptake of CO2 (or destroying CO2 binding capacity outright), or causing greenhouse gases to be emitted as a result of their actions (By heavily damaging / killing functioning ecosystems). These effects go much farther than anything that is discussed in the “official” count, and they don’t disappear by becoming vegetarian/vegan. The fuel addiction of our current agricultural practices only makes everything a lot worse.
Edit: I just checked - land use is somewhat counted into the stats you posted, but things like damage to ecosystems by pesticides, plastic use and damaging waterways because fertilizer runoff i can’t see anywhere.
Little is from beef. Beef, while the worst for emissions per calorie, is a tiny part of the overall food chain. Grains dominate.
You will get closer, but I suspect your nation is simply too wealthy to hit the target. The UK is 2.25x higher than two tonnes per capita.
It might be achievable if you cycle, never step foot on an aircraft, eat a local vegetarian diet, live in a small space heated with a heat pump, and buy solely used durable products. Again, there’s too much carbon in the supply chain and government services like road maintenance
Beef is like 40x the emissions of grain per kcal. Grains are also a lot of the overall value because they are uses as animal feed. Drop the need for animal feed and you significantly drop the need for grains.
Their thin walls cause this to only be a tiny improvement I’d wager (still the best option though). They can even punch holes in their walls, if I tried this with a german drywall I’d break all the bones in my hand.
but I suspect your nation is simply too wealthy to hit the target
This implies environmental protection contradicts wealth (as in “lots of money in one n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ regional administrative zone”), a common conservative lie. It doesn’t, unfettered capitalism does. E.g. the solar business makes fucking bank but is a net positive on the environment. So are lots of other businesses.
The definition of wealth is fucked anyway.
Why is this being downvoted, it’s correct. The way shit is set up right now a lot of people do not have a choice but to drive, and not just in the US. Oil has been purposefully made a hard dependence.
We’re all on the same team bud. At least you’re here in this community hoping one day to be free from the bondage of gasoline! Good luck on your journey!
Gasoline powered car ownership is not mandated by law and every country has cities where a car-free lifestyle is possible.
It appears you chose to move to a small town near Des Moines. North of you are the Twin Cities where you can live car free with public transit or a bicycle if you are physically capable.
So yes, you do have a choice. The privilege is the money for a car.
I grew up in a small town in the west country, UK. No car was due to financial necessity. If I wanted to go somewhere it was by bike or I just didn’t go. Yeah that probably did make it harder to find a job, though on the flip side it also meant literally any full time job pays enough to live comfortably.
There’s a reason the overwhelming majority of trips in Minneapolis happen by car. There’s like 3 cities in the US where not having a car or motorcycle doesn’t put you at a massive disadvantage, those are NYC, DC, and maybe Boston or Chicago.
Plenty of people in the Twin Cities live with only a bike and public transit. I was one of them and I never felt the massive disadvantage you write about. You just need to choose to live in an appropriate location.
You just need to choose to live in an appropriate location.
Again, it’s a choice.
You just need to relocate, find affordable housing (lol), find a new job at that new place, convince your partner, potentially rip away your kids from their environment, move far away from family and friends, find a completely new social circle and then you’ll finally be able to live car-free! Except all the times you’ll now have to rent one.
Like, seriously? It is not always just a choice, you’re just god damn privileged to be easily able to move. Let alone to a pricy place with quality infrastructure.
Depends massively on the car and your willingness to learn about them. My last car before I fled the US was a 2006 camery I inherited that only needed oil changes, tires/rotations, a battery, brakes, plugs, and a timing chain, and got ~28mpg. The timing chain, plugs, brakes, and tires were done by a mechanic friend, so not a whole lot given that I had it for like a decade, total cost was probably about what I sold it for.
My sister on the other hand insists on buying the least maintainable and fuel efficient cars possible on shit credit and I shutter to think what the monthly effective cost of ownership is, probably in the high hundreds.
My current mode of transportation when I’m not in China or Japan is a bike I paid 500 for and gets 100mpg. I put about 60 dollars into a new clutch, chain, sprockets, plug, and foot pegs. It could use a new bore, rings, piston, bearings, transmission, and something is causing a weak spark before its warmed up, and it’ll need new tires in a few thousand km, but it’s carried me across SEA twice, so none of it’s critical, its just the parts are showing signs of abuse.
Gas prices? Skill issue, just don’t buy it. I haven’t bought any in years.
If you buy food, you buy diesel. It’s what’s in the tractors and delivery trucks.
This is why it’s literally impossible for an American to live a two tonne CO2 lifestyle. Emissions are imbedded in the supply chains and government.
How much of that food emissions is from beef though? Like even if you insist on still eating meat if you were to change to pork/chicken it would reduce emissions a lot.
Although might be right for Americans, they have 3x what we do here per capita. Should be easier for me if I just need to do around half of what the average person does to get under 2. So heat pump, eat minimal meat with plenty of grains and veg instead, cycle to work, probably already most of the way there.
Everything regarding Agriculture (not just in the US, look at how much of the russian harvest is just rotting on the fields this year because of the lack of fuel) is heavily dependent mostly on diesel fuel. All those large machines use lots of fuel, and they are used in every step - preparing the ground, fertilizing, planting and harvesting. The way the US is doing things, transportation also uses fuel for giant fleets of trucks for most of the distance - transportation by train exists, but suffers from decades of neglect and having to compete with subsidized fuel prices. If americans had to pay for fuel without externalizing costs, i’m sure that the train network would suddenly have enough resources to expand and do long overdue maintenance.
Sure, cattle is a huge part of the problem, but the above process is CO2-heavy even in areas where it would not have to be.
Do you have a source for this?
I find that everything related to meat and fish production produces 13.78% of global emissions excluding transport ([wikipedia] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_agriculture?wprov=sfti1)) or 53% of all agricultural emission, while the whole supply chain is 18% of agricultural emissions, thus 4.6% of total.
So meat production is by far the driver of agricultural emission, even if obviously the whole chain could become cleaner.
Additionally, all freight transport accounts for 30% of transport emissions, so a total of 6% of global emissions. So banning all camions would achieve half of what vegetarianism would achieve.
As i said, cattle is a huge part of the problem - i fully agree with you on that point. But the emissions are only one part of the equation: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_agriculture. The environmental effects of agriculture go much farther than their emissions, in many areas actively hindering reuptake of CO2 (or destroying CO2 binding capacity outright), or causing greenhouse gases to be emitted as a result of their actions (By heavily damaging / killing functioning ecosystems). These effects go much farther than anything that is discussed in the “official” count, and they don’t disappear by becoming vegetarian/vegan. The fuel addiction of our current agricultural practices only makes everything a lot worse.
Edit: I just checked - land use is somewhat counted into the stats you posted, but things like damage to ecosystems by pesticides, plastic use and damaging waterways because fertilizer runoff i can’t see anywhere.
But on the previous comment you were explicitly talking about diesel fuel.
Little is from beef. Beef, while the worst for emissions per calorie, is a tiny part of the overall food chain. Grains dominate.
You will get closer, but I suspect your nation is simply too wealthy to hit the target. The UK is 2.25x higher than two tonnes per capita.
It might be achievable if you cycle, never step foot on an aircraft, eat a local vegetarian diet, live in a small space heated with a heat pump, and buy solely used durable products. Again, there’s too much carbon in the supply chain and government services like road maintenance
Of course, you are miles ahead of the US.
Beef is like 40x the emissions of grain per kcal. Grains are also a lot of the overall value because they are uses as animal feed. Drop the need for animal feed and you significantly drop the need for grains.
Their thin walls cause this to only be a tiny improvement I’d wager (still the best option though). They can even punch holes in their walls, if I tried this with a german drywall I’d break all the bones in my hand.
This implies environmental protection contradicts wealth (as in “lots of money in one n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ regional administrative zone”), a common conservative lie. It doesn’t, unfettered capitalism does. E.g. the solar business makes fucking bank but is a net positive on the environment. So are lots of other businesses. The definition of wealth is fucked anyway.
Thin walls? I have 2 layers of block walls with cavity insulation.
Nice privilege. A lot of the rest of us don’t have a choice.
Why is this being downvoted, it’s correct. The way shit is set up right now a lot of people do not have a choice but to drive, and not just in the US. Oil has been purposefully made a hard dependence.
Oh yeah, so privileged to have grown up unable to afford to learn to drive a car
Not owning a car in a suburb of Bumfuckville, USA is a much bigger disadvantage than not owning a car in NYC, Tokyo, or Hanoi.
We’re all on the same team bud. At least you’re here in this community hoping one day to be free from the bondage of gasoline! Good luck on your journey!
Gasoline powered car ownership is not mandated by law and every country has cities where a car-free lifestyle is possible.
It appears you chose to move to a small town near Des Moines. North of you are the Twin Cities where you can live car free with public transit or a bicycle if you are physically capable.
So yes, you do have a choice. The privilege is the money for a car.
I grew up in a small town in the west country, UK. No car was due to financial necessity. If I wanted to go somewhere it was by bike or I just didn’t go. Yeah that probably did make it harder to find a job, though on the flip side it also meant literally any full time job pays enough to live comfortably.
There’s a reason the overwhelming majority of trips in Minneapolis happen by car. There’s like 3 cities in the US where not having a car or motorcycle doesn’t put you at a massive disadvantage, those are NYC, DC, and maybe Boston or Chicago.
Plenty of people in the Twin Cities live with only a bike and public transit. I was one of them and I never felt the massive disadvantage you write about. You just need to choose to live in an appropriate location.
Again, it’s a choice.
You just need to relocate, find affordable housing (lol), find a new job at that new place, convince your partner, potentially rip away your kids from their environment, move far away from family and friends, find a completely new social circle and then you’ll finally be able to live car-free! Except all the times you’ll now have to rent one.
Like, seriously? It is not always just a choice, you’re just god damn privileged to be easily able to move. Let alone to a pricy place with quality infrastructure.
No one said choices are easy. That doesn’t mean they aren’t choices.
How much is rent?
How much does it cost to buy, maintain, fuel, park, and insure a gasoline car?
Depends massively on the car and your willingness to learn about them. My last car before I fled the US was a 2006 camery I inherited that only needed oil changes, tires/rotations, a battery, brakes, plugs, and a timing chain, and got ~28mpg. The timing chain, plugs, brakes, and tires were done by a mechanic friend, so not a whole lot given that I had it for like a decade, total cost was probably about what I sold it for.
My sister on the other hand insists on buying the least maintainable and fuel efficient cars possible on shit credit and I shutter to think what the monthly effective cost of ownership is, probably in the high hundreds.
My current mode of transportation when I’m not in China or Japan is a bike I paid 500 for and gets 100mpg. I put about 60 dollars into a new clutch, chain, sprockets, plug, and foot pegs. It could use a new bore, rings, piston, bearings, transmission, and something is causing a weak spark before its warmed up, and it’ll need new tires in a few thousand km, but it’s carried me across SEA twice, so none of it’s critical, its just the parts are showing signs of abuse.