• Rekorse
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Changing your diet is more impactful than stopping international travel.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      I’m going to fact check you, and you are not going to like it. But I hope you are able to learn instead of keeping yourself in a dogma.

      Let’s assume only one international flight per year. 12 hours. Times 2 as you have to come back . So 24 hours in a plane.

      A plane emits 250 Kg of CO2 by passenger by hour. Total product is 250x24. Which equals 6 tons of CO2 emited by one international travel.

      Now we go with diet. I only eat chicken and pork (beef is expensive). My country average is 100Kg of meat per person per year. Pork production takes 12 Kg of CO2 per Kg of meat. Chicken is 10, so I will average at 11 Kg. 11Kg of CO2 multiplies by 100Kg eaten makes 1.1 tons of CO2.

      6 is greater than 1.1. about 6 times greater give it or take.

      So my decision of not doing international travel saves 6 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere per travel. While if I would completely take the meat I eat from my diet I would only reduce 1.1 ton of CO2 per year.

      Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/a-63595148 https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html

      • Rekorse
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        I still think the numbers will be skewed heavily by those that travel internationally 0 times per year, but I think your math is accurate from what I can tell. Essentially, less air travel is good if you regularly travel, otherwise not so much.

        How’s the math turn out if people use alternate means of travel? Is traveling by boat still a thing?