You Should Know

Not true. The single greatest thing you can do to have a lower carbon footprint is to not have any children.

Does the graph include how palm farms are built on precious forest land that has since been burned down? and that the land primarily being burnt is some of the most important land for storing carbon and providing oxygen?

Nuts are nuts!

Yeah I've cut down a lot, for health, ethical, and environmental reasons. I've got a perfect model in my family to avoid emulating. Red meat is a rare item in my house and I don't often miss it.

We're so disconnected from our food now, the journey here has been all abstract for me.

I like to go bottom up. If chocolate and coffee are off the menu, I'm not sure this life is worth continuing.

It shows one person greening an average pension is 57 times more effective in dealing with the climate crisis than having a vegan diet and 20 times better than driving an electric car.

I heard a similar news report on PBS a couple weeks ago. Aside from the obvious, and already mentioned, don't have kids. Both for the environment, and to not put your kids through the coming bullshit.

your tulane link is not exactly good science. it relies on Clark (2019) which itself relies on Poore-Nemecek (2018). Poore & Nemecek built their data by combining LCA studies, a practice which is specifically discouraged by the studies themselves and the guidance on LCA studies generally. we can't really rely on those conclusions at all.

they also rely on Behrens (2017), which shares a problem with poore-nemecek, though a more nuanced one: they myopically distill data from input-output to calculate environmental impacts like water and land use and ghge. this seems reasonable at first blush, but in fact it overlooks the complexity of our agricultural systems. for instance, one of the things farmers feed cattle is cottonseed. cotton is grown for textiles, and the seed is largely waste product. feeding it to cattle is a conservation of resources, and doing so should in no way count against the land, water, and ghge statistics for cattle.

but that's not really here or there, as it turns out, because the thrust of the paper is not "these foods are bad for the environment" or "these foods are good for the environment". the actual claim made in the paper is "there is not actually sufficient data sources available to determine which foods have which impacts".

As long as we can take the rich with us, let the baby burn 🔥🔥🔥

I’m gonna drive my car…because that’s necessary, but I haven’t eaten meat (red, white, blue, whatever) for 20 years, so between that, not adding to the surface population, and not voting for complete jackasses, I think I’ve at least offset the driving.

The real biggest thing you can do for the environment would be reducing the global human population.

Humans do not produce anything for the environment, the mere existence of humans automatically causes harm to the environment. Humans take from the environment but give nothing useful back. If humans were deleted from the Earth, the environment would not be negatively effected. Even the most "environmentally friendly" human still damages their local environment by being alive.

But you know, killing people is pretty illegal basically everywhere, and extremely unethical in many, many ways. Unethical Pro Tips I guess? Please nobody actually do this.

Still going to VOTE! Don’t know why that needed to be in there, next to car and red meat

What else?