Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> [meat’s] carbon-cost is not considered a much as it should be (as is the case with most things, I think)

Oh, I strongly agree.

However the majority of the greenhouse gas contribution from meat is methane, which decomposes over many decades. So in the long term, not eating meat is expected to only decrease your carbon footprint by 2% to 4%[1][2].

But meat is expensive, and I suspect that whatever you substitute instead of purchasing meat would generate CO2, so my guess is the impact would be much closer to 0%.

Personally I use money as my proxy for calculating carbon footprint. So your long term footprint is highly correlated and mostly dependent upon your income and the economy you belong to, almost regardless of your actions.

Unless you are doing direct action to capture carbon, not having children, killing people, or reducing your economy’s usage of CO2, then action at an individual level makes very little difference IMHO. Not to say we shouldn’t try!

Edit: also note the 60% headline figure is of 35% agricultural emissions, so actually about 20% of personal emissions. And presumably that is very strongly dependant on the country you in (buying meat from).

[1] https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/green-business/125675673/pa...

[2] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5568#



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: