• rjwilliamson@lemmy.zipBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Animal agriculture contributes between 10-20% of total ghg emissions, depending on the estimate.

    https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livestock-dont-contribute-14-5-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    The entire digital economy footprint, including AI and all internet infrastructure, is less than 4% of global emissions.

    https://www.climatiq.io/blog/measure-greenhouse-gas-emissions-carbon-data-centres-cloud-computing

    But sure, AI is the problem we should be focusing on.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I haven’t said anything about AI.

      but that Xu et al 2021 paper has some dubious methodology. the conclusions might be correct but the methodology can’t prove it.

      • rjwilliamson@lemmy.zipBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        What is the issue with the methodology exactly? In any case, the lower end of estimates is still twice the emissions of all of the digital economy. We would do more for climate change going vegan than we would fighting data centers.

        I mentioned AI because that is the topic of the thread we are in.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          well I skimmed specifically for lca study combinations, and found them quickly. that invalidates all the data. if I read further, who knows what else i might find

          • rjwilliamson@lemmy.zipBanned from community
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Skimming is usually not a great way to make definitive conclusions about a study. Would you care to elaborate on what about the LCA methodology “invalidates all the data”, and how you could make such a claim with certainty simply by skimming it?

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              if you had read this study, and understood the underlying science, the fact that I skimmed it would not interfere with your abilitiy to defend it.

              • rjwilliamson@lemmy.zipBanned from community
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                I have not had any issue defending it, but you apparently have an issue with providing rigorous citations for your claims.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  you haven’t explained why you think combining disparately methodized lca studies produces good data.

                  • rjwilliamson@lemmy.zipBanned from community
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    Where did they combine LCA methodologies exactly? They cited exactly one LCA methodology, so I’m not sure what you are referencing when you mention “combining”.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              LCA studies are custom built for each product comparison. by combining multiple LCA studies that have desperate methodology, they have muddied the results. none of this is reliable. it’s not good science.

              • rjwilliamson@lemmy.zipBanned from community
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                They use someone else’s LCA methodology. It honestly sounds like you are just making shit up. Maybe try skimming a bit more thoroughly?

                  • rjwilliamson@lemmy.zipBanned from community
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    It’s really quite irrelevant to the overall point I was making, and was one of several studies that puts the estimate for animal agriculture between 10-20%. Anything else you would like to nitpick about that is irrelevant to the actual discussion?