The concept of a personal "carbon footprint" was popularized by oil companies to refocus attention away from their responsibility for climate change
post
For many years after I retired I didn't drive at all. I could go a month without using the car. Really was proud of myself for saving the planet.
Then my health went to hell. I'm always driving to the doctor, and eating a lot of beef (anemic). I'm actually tired of eating beef. But the other option is transfusions, so carbon footprint be damned.
Give me a couple of years and I'll show how to reduce carbon footprint. It's not going to look pretty thought.
But as others have said, how much carbon footprint does Bezos yacht have?
I get this. My wife has medical issues and we can't exactly walk everywhere and she can't ride a bike at all comfortably. We actually put a lot of time into finding something that would work and she hurt herself. Granted we were looking at affordable options.
But as others have said, how much carbon footprint does Bezos yacht have?
This is my conclusion as well.
I am conscientious about what I use/buy/eat, preferring local products even if they cost a bit more. I like walking and public transport is super convenient.
As long as I'm not buying Nestlé (as much as I can, I'm still surprised by finding Nestlé products). Fuck Nestlé
I’m actually tired of eating beef.
Would beef-liver supplements (like in pill form) be enough iron to replace the beef?
Why does the article compare kilograms of food instead of equivalent calorie amounts?
The study provides data per 100g of protein, which seems like more useful comparison.
There are other reasons to buy local-ish. If you're lucky, local farms have stricter labor and environmental regulations, ie use less pesticides and better treat workers, than oversea farmers.
That being said it make sense to focus on eating less beef and lamb products.
In my mind, local food is more about the economics of supporting small businesses in your community. Sure, eating beans and lentils shipped across the world to your closest whole foods may have a smaller carbon footprint, but your money is still being siphoned to the big businesses in that supply chain.
The problem is the system, not the head count. As AI and automation advances, the capitalist class will have no problem causing just as much ecological damage with a hundredth of the current population.
People don't produce all that much CO2, and by stewarding (food) forests and tending gardens they can be part of an ecosystem that absorbs more CO2 than they produce.
If you care enough about the environment to go vegan, you can raise your children to be net positive for the planet.
That does mean destroying capitalism, including most of the automotive industry, agriculture industry, aviation industry, data centers, and more.
Why is every meat called by it's food name (beef, mutton, poultry etc) except for pork... Which is "pig meat"?
Maybe to differentiate from pork in general and products made with pork (Bacon, sausages...).
Just a thought, no source
Is beef a name for cows used outside of food?
What about manflesh? Would this be rated high CO2 content, or low because eating the emitter is probably one of the best ways to get emissions down.
You can see this directly from the Iran war effects: peaking oil prices and fossil scarcity are harming food production more globally (via fertilizers, pesticides, tractors) than transporting it.
Although I get the point, I can’t help but think this chart would be more effective if the colors were labeled.


all 37 comments