How much of that food emissions is from beef though? Like even if you insist on still eating meat if you were to change to pork/chicken it would reduce emissions a lot.
Although might be right for Americans, they have 3x what we do here per capita. Should be easier for me if I just need to do around half of what the average person does to get under 2. So heat pump, eat minimal meat with plenty of grains and veg instead, cycle to work, probably already most of the way there.
Little is from beef. Beef, while the worst for emissions per calorie, is a tiny part of the overall food chain. Grains dominate.
You will get closer, but I suspect your nation is simply too wealthy to hit the target. The UK is 2.25x higher than two tonnes per capita.
It might be achievable if you cycle, never step foot on an aircraft, eat a local vegetarian diet, live in a small space heated with a heat pump, and buy solely used durable products. Again, there’s too much carbon in the supply chain and government services like road maintenance
Their thin walls cause this to only be a tiny improvement I’d wager (still the best option though). They can even punch holes in their walls, if I tried this with a german drywall I’d break all the bones in my hand.
but I suspect your nation is simply too wealthy to hit the target
This implies environmental protection contradicts wealth (as in “lots of money in one n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ regional administrative zone”), a common conservative lie. It doesn’t, unfettered capitalism does. E.g. the solar business makes fucking bank but is a net positive on the environment. So are lots of other businesses.
The definition of wealth is fucked anyway.
The U.S. is about 28 times larger than Germany. There is an entire continent worth of biomes here. Some places have thin walls, and some don’t. Insulation factor is less important in, say, San Diego than it is in Minneapolis, for example.
Everything regarding Agriculture (not just in the US, look at how much of the russian harvest is just rotting on the fields this year because of the lack of fuel) is heavily dependent mostly on diesel fuel. All those large machines use lots of fuel, and they are used in every step - preparing the ground, fertilizing, planting and harvesting. The way the US is doing things, transportation also uses fuel for giant fleets of trucks for most of the distance - transportation by train exists, but suffers from decades of neglect and having to compete with subsidized fuel prices. If americans had to pay for fuel without externalizing costs, i’m sure that the train network would suddenly have enough resources to expand and do long overdue maintenance.
Sure, cattle is a huge part of the problem, but the above process is CO2-heavy even in areas where it would not have to be.
I find that everything related to meat and fish production produces 13.78% of global emissions excluding transport ([wikipedia] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_agriculture?wprov=sfti1)) or 53% of all agricultural emission, while the whole supply chain is 18% of agricultural emissions, thus 4.6% of total.
So meat production is by far the driver of agricultural emission, even if obviously the whole chain could become cleaner.
Additionally, all freight transport accounts for 30% of transport emissions, so a total of 6% of global emissions. So banning all camions would achieve half of what vegetarianism would achieve.
How much of that food emissions is from beef though? Like even if you insist on still eating meat if you were to change to pork/chicken it would reduce emissions a lot.
Although might be right for Americans, they have 3x what we do here per capita. Should be easier for me if I just need to do around half of what the average person does to get under 2. So heat pump, eat minimal meat with plenty of grains and veg instead, cycle to work, probably already most of the way there.
Little is from beef. Beef, while the worst for emissions per calorie, is a tiny part of the overall food chain. Grains dominate.
You will get closer, but I suspect your nation is simply too wealthy to hit the target. The UK is 2.25x higher than two tonnes per capita.
It might be achievable if you cycle, never step foot on an aircraft, eat a local vegetarian diet, live in a small space heated with a heat pump, and buy solely used durable products. Again, there’s too much carbon in the supply chain and government services like road maintenance
Of course, you are miles ahead of the US.
Their thin walls cause this to only be a tiny improvement I’d wager (still the best option though). They can even punch holes in their walls, if I tried this with a german drywall I’d break all the bones in my hand.
This implies environmental protection contradicts wealth (as in “lots of money in one n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ regional administrative zone”), a common conservative lie. It doesn’t, unfettered capitalism does. E.g. the solar business makes fucking bank but is a net positive on the environment. So are lots of other businesses. The definition of wealth is fucked anyway.
The U.S. is about 28 times larger than Germany. There is an entire continent worth of biomes here. Some places have thin walls, and some don’t. Insulation factor is less important in, say, San Diego than it is in Minneapolis, for example.
Thin walls? I have 2 layers of block walls with cavity insulation.
Everything regarding Agriculture (not just in the US, look at how much of the russian harvest is just rotting on the fields this year because of the lack of fuel) is heavily dependent mostly on diesel fuel. All those large machines use lots of fuel, and they are used in every step - preparing the ground, fertilizing, planting and harvesting. The way the US is doing things, transportation also uses fuel for giant fleets of trucks for most of the distance - transportation by train exists, but suffers from decades of neglect and having to compete with subsidized fuel prices. If americans had to pay for fuel without externalizing costs, i’m sure that the train network would suddenly have enough resources to expand and do long overdue maintenance.
Sure, cattle is a huge part of the problem, but the above process is CO2-heavy even in areas where it would not have to be.
Do you have a source for this?
I find that everything related to meat and fish production produces 13.78% of global emissions excluding transport ([wikipedia] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_agriculture?wprov=sfti1)) or 53% of all agricultural emission, while the whole supply chain is 18% of agricultural emissions, thus 4.6% of total.
So meat production is by far the driver of agricultural emission, even if obviously the whole chain could become cleaner.
Additionally, all freight transport accounts for 30% of transport emissions, so a total of 6% of global emissions. So banning all camions would achieve half of what vegetarianism would achieve.