Tony, an awful lot of rainforest has been razed to make grazing land for beef cattle. I think it’s absurd to argue that eating beef has zero negative climate effect.
Fair enough Steve, but I didn't say beef has zero negative climate effect. Deforestation is a huge problem, and a lot of it is done in the name of grazing beef. I get that. And beef's direct emissions (scope 1) account for about 5% of the global total. My point is that "carbon footprint" grossly over estimates the emissions from beef by including scope 3 emissions and as a result, consumers grossly over estimate the effect we are having by boycotting it. If we want to make a difference, we need to look at our own direct emissions. If we don't do that, we are fooling ourselves.
Seems a little like semantics. Every small act helps. I don’t see it as an either-or, or a serial list. We do need to each strike a balance that works for us, in the context of our life and our ability to make choices large or small that can make a positive difference. Getting bogged down in scope analyses doesn’t feel helpful for me--I think it makes some folks feel like throwing their hands in the air and giving up. But if it helps you, great!
Yes, every little bit helps. But some little bits help way more than others, and some improve our lives more than others. Thought matters in this regard.
The frustration you are talking about is exactly my point. Many people are sacrificing, seeing no change, and thinking, “what’s the point?” but they are missing where they can make a real difference. If we look at our actual personal carbon emissions we can know we are making a difference. Our cars and natural gas use are where real differences can be made.
No argument with that succinct point. I traded my Subaru for a Kia EV. I’d like to replace or supplement my furnace with a heat pump. Maybe solar panels one day. (I don’t eat beef ...)
Tony, an awful lot of rainforest has been razed to make grazing land for beef cattle. I think it’s absurd to argue that eating beef has zero negative climate effect.
Fair enough Steve, but I didn't say beef has zero negative climate effect. Deforestation is a huge problem, and a lot of it is done in the name of grazing beef. I get that. And beef's direct emissions (scope 1) account for about 5% of the global total. My point is that "carbon footprint" grossly over estimates the emissions from beef by including scope 3 emissions and as a result, consumers grossly over estimate the effect we are having by boycotting it. If we want to make a difference, we need to look at our own direct emissions. If we don't do that, we are fooling ourselves.
Seems a little like semantics. Every small act helps. I don’t see it as an either-or, or a serial list. We do need to each strike a balance that works for us, in the context of our life and our ability to make choices large or small that can make a positive difference. Getting bogged down in scope analyses doesn’t feel helpful for me--I think it makes some folks feel like throwing their hands in the air and giving up. But if it helps you, great!
Yes, every little bit helps. But some little bits help way more than others, and some improve our lives more than others. Thought matters in this regard.
The frustration you are talking about is exactly my point. Many people are sacrificing, seeing no change, and thinking, “what’s the point?” but they are missing where they can make a real difference. If we look at our actual personal carbon emissions we can know we are making a difference. Our cars and natural gas use are where real differences can be made.
No argument with that succinct point. I traded my Subaru for a Kia EV. I’d like to replace or supplement my furnace with a heat pump. Maybe solar panels one day. (I don’t eat beef ...)
You are on the road I am pointing to! Congrats and way to go!