that’s not going to help

good science is recognizing that LCAs are not transferable between studies, so poore-nemecek’s analysis must be disregarded.

this is just recycled poore nemecek. it’s bad science gaining entrenchment.

you are putting specific terminology in place of the words as written,and claiming it’s a clear connotation, when it is not

federated not Facebook

I use a lowercase c because I’m anticapitalist

she already rejected it before the article was published. it’s in the article

Jill rejected the endorsement, unlike Harris

for individuals who pay retail price for all their food. people who get free meat or dairy or harvest their own are not a party of that study. it applies to almost none of the poor people in the world, including the UK and Europe

this paper doesn’t tell us how much methane is produced. it’s as detailed as your comment.

what is the data? how much do they produce?

the paper compiles LCAs from disparate sources. but LCAs are not transferable between studies. the entire basis of the analysis is bad science.

this is just poore-nemecek, and it is bad science.

the more I dig into this paper the worse it gets. it’s calculating inputs from feed and land use change. this is as bad as poore-nemecek. but it’s not even using data from the operations, instead it’s just guessing.

no one should take this paper seriously, except academic rhetoricians who need to show their colleagues how the trappings of science are used to spread claims without evidence.

edit:

page 65: this report is an extrapolation based on ivanovich et al, which itself is an extrapolation based on poore-nemecek. this is bad science built on bad science.

I’m totally open to the claims that are presented, but the evidence used to support it simply can’t do that.

if they could prove it, this would be worth discussing. these are just guesses.

It is super easy to stop buying from animal agriculture, you simply decide it by yourself and buy a different thing next time you shop for groceries

and it is entirely ineffective at stopping the growth of animal agriculture

it’s something that we all want

a lot of people don’t want capitalism

If we’d eat only plants we’d solve 25% of the climate crisis over night.

you are exaggerating. all of agriculture is only about 20% ghge

your not my doctor

I imagine asian markets dwarf America and europe