|
|
|
|
|
|
by nexensis
2513 days ago
|
|
|
That data is only for the US where transportation and energy usage is likely higher per capita than other nations. It may also not take into account food that is imported. On the same website the EPA global stats show that agriculture and deforestation (largely due to clearing land for cattle grazing) contributes 24% of global greenhouse gas emissions. [1] I agree that we should be considering all areas of emissions, however diet is something that every individual can decide to take responsibility for immediately without having to lobby huge industries or pass new legislation. Other choices like moving to removable energy and reducing our reliance on transport have a lot more economic and social inertia behind them. Millions of people are already voluntarily reducing or eliminating their meat intake, and there are plant-based options at virtually all restaurants/chains here in the UK. It's a trend that we should all be encouraging in my opinion, as it demonstrates that society can willingly change its behaviour on a wider scale when presented with reasonable alternatives. [1] - https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... |
|
|
But the vast majority of government resources (money, attention and political capital) should be expended on reigning in systematic issues, such as outlined by GP: promoting electric vehicles, replacing all coal/oil/gas power plants, carbon neutral shipping and commercial flights etc
The shift of the global economy to sustainability is going to bring down lots of rich people and lots of vested interests, and replace it with other rich people and vested interests. The former are not going to go down without a big fight and only governments (and not individuals) are strong enough to bring them down.