since this study relies on poore-nemecek 2018, at least in part, I’m suspicious. they also admit they didn’t gather the data themselves, and although they never mention LCAs directly, my guess is there is a similar mishandling of source data. but I’ll read it today or tomorrow
but this is from poore-nemecek 2018. it’s not good science.
do you have something else to support this claim?
imstill reading your 2012 water footprint paper, btw
And milk alternatives are much better than dairy when it comes to water usage
what makes you think that?
The meat and dairy industry use vastly more water and also contribute to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions,
I’m not sure this is true
all media is propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry#Environmental_impact Plenty of sources are referenced in this section
this is a gish gallop. which study are you citing? the 22 year old study (reference number 78)? which of the dozens of references did you actually read?
you can read the citations on that study and see that LCA studies cannot be combined
I showed my reasoning, and the evidence is in the citations of the study we are discussing, and their citations
there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but that doesn’t mean that animal agriculture is okay
of course not. but it is probably ok, regardless of whether there is ethical consumption under capitalism
part of the advantage of not eating animals is that it takes less plants to eat just plants, then it does to eat animals - since you have to feed those animals too
animals graze, and what crops they are fed are often crop-seconds or parts of plants that people can’t (or won’t) eat.
you’re wrong about my motivations, and your personal values are not universal.
it’s a millennialism.
rights are not real, and convincing people they have them actually allows their sovereignty to be infringed.
https://www.usmint.gov/learn/coins-and-medals/commemorative-coins/harriet-tubman
these are valid currency. spend them.
edit: it doesn’t look like they’re shipping yet. but i can’t wait to let a few jingle around my pocket!
Are you going to claim they all suffer from the same flawed methodology? Do you also believe that climate change is a hoax?
Bring your counterpoints, not personal accusations.
i’m certainly willing to read any study you can present. this study relies almost entirely on poore-nemecek 2018, which combined LCA data gathered with disparate methodologies, and did so against the guidance of the LCA studies themselves. it’s garbage. it’s not science. writing a study that relies so heavily on that study is also garbage.
if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all
I don’t need to be friendly
kindly point out
sealioning
pfft. quit it kiddo, you’re not equipped for this.
toxicity
this study is just warmed-over poore-nemecek 2018, and suffers from the same flawed methodology to make its hyperbolic claims
The LCA studies that they cite specifically give guidance that it cannot be combined with other LCA studies. some of the studies they cite are meta studies that actually acknowledge this, but the poore-nemecek paper doesn’t even bother to acknowledge it.