Thread by @sakie339

Worth reading this on livestock and greenhouse gas emission
aleph-2020.blogspot.com/2019/06/greenh…

Global data should not be used to evaluate local contexts

Regional differences are due to large variations in feed digestibility, genetics, slaughter age/weight, climate conditions, and management as well as a different focus on wealth, draft power, fuel, religious significance

In Europe, lower footprints are partially ascribed to the fact that 80% of beef comes from dairy animals.
Globally, a 30% reduction can be achieved if all producers would adopt the practices used by the 10% most efficient ones (or 18%, adopting the best 25%)

Another mitigation option consist of reductions in food wastage (losses plus waste), re-use of meat-processing by-products, and increased consumption of edible offal

The major contributors to wastage emissions are cereals (34% of total, mostly rice in Asia), vegetables (21%, mostly greenhouse produce in the West), and meat (21%) or other ASFs

Restricting ASF production is not just a subtraction from the GHG budget but would generate its own effects, related to the filling of the nutrient gap created by a shift to more crops.

Removing all dairy would lead to a reduction of just 0.7%. At the same time, both transitions would create domestic deficiencies in critically limiting nutrients , which is not unexpected given that ASFs are valuable sources of essential nutrition

Some vegetarians may even have higher impacts than some omnivores, as certain plant products have elevated footprints.

Overstating effects from dietary footprints distracts from the more impactful emissions related to extractive Western lifestyles and their reliance on fossil fuels. Living car free saves 1.0-5.3 t CO2-eq/p/y.

Typical vehicles emit 3 to 6-9 t CO2-eq/p/y depending on the country and average distances covered, with a kg CO2-eq/km load of 0.1 to 0.7.

Global tourism creates 8% of GHG emissions . A roundtrip flight yields 0.7-2.8 t CO2-eq/p. This is still minor compared to the emissions of private aircraft users or superyachts, underlining a conflict between the virtue-signalling and carbon-intensive lifestyles of elites

Increased digitalisation also come with heavy carbon costs. Email use alone creates 0.1-0.6 t CO2-eq/p/y for professional and individual users. ICT may reach >14% of the global GHG budget by 2040 (smart phones surpassing the individual contribution of desktops, laptops,displays)

Fashion also adds a substantial carbon cost. The average person buys 60% more clothing than in 2000. Owning a dog or horse releases 1.0 or 3.0 t CO2-eq/y, resp. while pet feed in the US generates 25-30% of the environmental impact from animal production.