976
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2025
976 points (100.0% liked)
Uplifting News
16963 readers
50 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That graph is wrong/misleading:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9
this article relies on poore-nemecek 2018, and should not be considered reliable itself
No? They merely state that their results are consistent with one of Poore and Nemecek's findings. The methods, article scope, and more differ.
I'm not going to defend the article further. If you all want to believe a website over a scientific publication, feel free.
oh? can you link a version that isn't pay walled?
what website?
Food = total GHG emissions * 0.34
Agriculture = Food * 0.71
(supply chain activities: retail, transport, consumption, fuel production, waste management, industrial processes and packaging) = Food * 0.29
Learn to read
I know how to: .71 * 18 = 12.78 Gt, which is more than double what your graph ascribes to agriculture.
Also, there's no need to be rude, even if I had been wrong.
That’s fair the numbers indeed don’t add up, my graphic uses CO2 while nature.com uses: “estimating greenhouse gas (GHG; CO2, CH4, N2O, fluorinated gases) emissions” comparing apples to oranges.
But even in the nature.com study my original stance still stands, eating meat does not contribute to 2/3 of emissions. Yes it is an important factor but so is insulation & transportation.
0.34 * 0.71 ≠ 0.66
Your graphic uses the same larger type of metric of greenhouse gases as does the Nature article. If you click on the greenhouse gas equivalents bit in the header where the figure came from, it makes that clear:
You're not wrong about meat not comprising two-thirds of any person's total GHG emissions, and I've never suggested otherwise. I just wanted to provide a better source of information than that graphic.
How is it a better source? It uses language that tricks most vegans in thinking 2/3s of pollution is from eating meat! I remember watching vegan documentaries and getting that same statistic.
The myworldindata shows the values in “tonnes ofcarbon dioxide-equivalents per person per year” apples to oranges.
It's a Nature article; there's no better source for information. Not sure where you're getting the 2/3s idea or meat idea from that article--it does not use such language.
the article is poorly methodized, and should not be considered reliable