• HerbGrower@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

    • Kind_to_Everyone@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • HerbGrower@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

      • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        live in a small space heated with a heat pump

        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.

        • MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The U.S. is about 28 times larger than Germany. There is an entire continent worth of biomes here. Some places have thin walls, and some don’t. Insulation factor is less important in, say, San Diego than it is in Minneapolis, for example.