• LengAwaits@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    There was a good discussion of this on Reddit recently. Sorry to link to Reddit, but it’s a good, topical post worth perusal.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Agriculture/comments/1dv7fw9/how_much_good_land_is_used_to_grow_food_for/

    ETA:

    We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      yeah that pretty much checks out. The best solution to climate change is to kill shit like private jets and yachts. But that’s unlikely to happen.

      • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The best solution to climate change is to kill shit like private jets and yachts.

        I severely doubt those emissions are anything but negligible because there are so few yachts and jets.

        Edit: Yeah, just downvoting is cheap, so here’s just a single statistic for you: https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions

        Total aviation is responsible for about 2.5% of worldwide carbon emissions. That’s all air travel, private jets included. While it’s obviously very popular to focus on the luxuries of the rich, it just won’t be effective to focus on those when fighting climate change, let alone being a solution as you claimed.

        • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          What’s an easier solution, in your opinion? Getting the ultra wealthy to give up their yachts and jets (by getting rid of the ultra wealthy entirely, which also addresses the evils of capitalism), or convincing hundreds of millions of people to change just about everything about the diet they’ve been eating for tens of thousands of years?

          • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s actually a good question. Considering the political power the ultra-rich wield, I’m not sure. But I think we should focus what brings the most bang for the buck.