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”.
Ok, now I’m questioning your literacy. From the study:
“Methods
To quantify the total food-related GHG emissions, we first estimated the total
crop and grazing biomass, including livestock feed, and then partitioned the
total biomass between plant- and animal-based food (livestock feed) and other
utilizations.
Based on the estimated biomass, we calculated and partitioned the
production-based GHG emissions from plant and livestock to plant- and
animal-based food and other utilizations. After that, we calculated GHG emissions
from the consumption-based perspective, taking into account transportation,
international trade (import and export) and stock variation. We estimated the
consumption-based emissions to explicitly account for the GHG emissions caused
by trade. This was especially important for regions and countries which import
and/or export large amounts of plant- and animal-based food in the context of
better tracing food systems’ global and regional GHG footprints.”
And it goes in. LCA is mentioned one time, and they mention the single methodology that they used.
this quote shows no evidence of them conducting a single LCA. the fact that they used poore-nemecek’s method outs them. they just combined a bunch of disparately methodized studies. it’s junk science.
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.
I have not had any issue defending it, but you apparently have an issue with providing rigorous citations for your claims.
you haven’t explained why you think combining disparately methodized lca studies produces good data.
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”.
the LCA studies themselves are disparately mthodized. they can’t be combined at all.
No one combined them. Xu, who you are calling into question, used one LCA methodology.
xu didn’t conduct any LCA studies at all. they combined multiple LCA studies
Ok, now I’m questioning your literacy. From the study:
“Methods To quantify the total food-related GHG emissions, we first estimated the total crop and grazing biomass, including livestock feed, and then partitioned the total biomass between plant- and animal-based food (livestock feed) and other utilizations. Based on the estimated biomass, we calculated and partitioned the production-based GHG emissions from plant and livestock to plant- and animal-based food and other utilizations. After that, we calculated GHG emissions from the consumption-based perspective, taking into account transportation, international trade (import and export) and stock variation. We estimated the consumption-based emissions to explicitly account for the GHG emissions caused by trade. This was especially important for regions and countries which import and/or export large amounts of plant- and animal-based food in the context of better tracing food systems’ global and regional GHG footprints.”
And it goes in. LCA is mentioned one time, and they mention the single methodology that they used.
this quote shows no evidence of them conducting a single LCA. the fact that they used poore-nemecek’s method outs them. they just combined a bunch of disparately methodized studies. it’s junk science.