[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

I'm on mobile rn. can you link the bibliography

[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

I didn't lie at all: the other user doesn't seem to know how poore and nemeceks lcas are calculated in the first place

[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

you know as well as I do that the meta analysis is depending on studies that do exactly what I said, and relying on papers that employ a flawed methodology is, itself, a flawed methodology.

[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

I have and you are splitting hairs about this

[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

this is splitting hairs.

[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

the conclusion is "beef produces 85kg co2e". it's calculating exactly what I said.

[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

they take a myopic view of the inputs and outputs for food sources, not considering, for instance, that much of what is fed to animals would otherwise be wasted. the beef doesn't produce all that CO2, poore & nemecek were calculating all the co2 that goes into the inputs. i mentioned elsewhere cottonseed, but frankly i know that only takes up a minute portion of what they're calculating. instead, they are also counting soy, and that's almost as dishonest as you can get. nearly all soy is pressed for oil, and after that, the waste product is what is fed to cattle and other livestock. technically, you could eat it, but most people don't and don't want to. feeding it to livestock actually reclaims waste products. and even the calculation for the soy itself is skewed since it often also counts the deforestation that has already taken place as an emission source, regardless of whether that particular plot of land has been deforested for decades.

[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

as just one facet, they count everything fed to beef, including cottonseed, when calculating the inputs. but cotton isn't grown for cottonseed. if we didn't feed a large portion of our annual cottonseed to livestock, it would just be wasted. vegans will tell you that the return is only 1/10 of the input, but that's a lot better than 0/10.

[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago

poore nemecek's methodology is flawed.

[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

poore nemecek had flawed methodology and should not be the basis of policy decisions.

[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago

this is based on the poore-nemecek study and should not be regarded as "true". it's "true if they methodology reflects reality" but it does not.

[-] spud@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

no evidence has been provided though

view more: next ›

spud

joined 10 months ago