I may have articulated myself badly. What I mean is the following: If I decide to instead eat e. G. 1kg of low quality meat every week I am responsible (by eating meat) for an amount x of CO2 emissions. If I now switch to only 500g of higher quality meat the amount of CO2 emissions goes down to about 1/2x(I know this isn’t exactly true, due to the lost efficiency, but for bigger reductions its absolutely true, that the amount if CO2 you emitted goes down).
this isn’t causal
I may have articulated myself badly. What I mean is the following: If I decide to instead eat e. G. 1kg of low quality meat every week I am responsible (by eating meat) for an amount x of CO2 emissions. If I now switch to only 500g of higher quality meat the amount of CO2 emissions goes down to about 1/2x(I know this isn’t exactly true, due to the lost efficiency, but for bigger reductions its absolutely true, that the amount if CO2 you emitted goes down).
I don’t think that’s true. those emissions happen regardless of whether you eat it. they happen regardless of whether you buy it.
Source please.
Your analysis undermines genuine science by disregarding the reduction in demand which reduces the supply and forming a data set with a sample of 1.
it’s obvious that the emissions happen before you decide whether to purchase a product. that’s how linear time works.
this isn’t causal