,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Let's clear this up. @tadfriend used @TSearchinger's CO2E cost for *marginal* beef consumption. That is, assuming every additional pound of beef we eat causes more deforestation. Here's why it's inaccurate in this context.
If you do the math with that number, you find that beef's CO2E footprint would be 16 gigatonnes annually, about 40% of TOTAL global emissions. @WorldResources (the same group the marginal data is from) puts beef at 6% of total GHG.
So, while it's totally legit to count deforestation for *additional* beef consumption, it's not kosher to use it for *current* consumption levels. But here's what bugs me ...
Whenever these arguments surface, the ant-beef people sign on to the big number, whatever it is. The pro-beef people sign on to the small number (and often make the case that it's even smaller). This is Exhibit A in confirmation bias.
Since I'm as susceptible to confirmation bias as the next guy, I'm very glad not to have an ideological dog in this fight. So I'll leave you with my super-sober, totally unbiased assessment of the climate impact of beef consumption. washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food…
