Best I can find is beef is 3% if total emissions and cruise ships are 0.2%
As has been repeated here, I eat beef, I donāt eat beef, thereās absolutely zero difference in climate change. that simple act accomplishes nothing positive.
Maybe if everyone stopped eating beef. But thatās not what youāre asking. Youāre asking me to not eat beef.
And no, I will never take a cruise for the emissions alone. So Iām already doing more than the ādonāt eat beefā people.
Hear me out now
As long as you ask the stewardess for the chicken entree instead of the steak, you basically offset your carbon emissions
2 Likes
Actually take this back-- there was a period of my life where I got a double-cheeseburger from McDonalds almost everyday. I would not do that any longerā¦ for uh.. multiple reasons.
1 Like
Iām not sure the numbers work out.. The average number of passengers per cruise liner is 3,000. So (dividing 150 tons by 3,000) each passenger is putting out 1/20th ton per day. The passenger would have to travel more than 200 days a year to surpass the 10 tons from beef-eating.
1 Like
The government can. Seems like an immensely simple change and doesnāt hurt anybody.
We can argue all day whether the government SHOULD, but they can. They could also make beef illegal or rationed, but they wonāt do either action.
So for the 0.000000000013% of the population that I am, Iāll continue recycling and composting, and I already have a low consumption of meat, but will continue to eat some beef.
1 Like
Really need emissions of the person. Actuaries are going to have a lot more emissions from our luxuries and vacations than our meat.
So I assume you donāt bother voting either by that argument.
1 Like
1 vote can win an election.
1 uneaten hamburger doesnāt save the planet.
But why should I care about the CO2 emissions? From altruism?
2 Likes
Itās the exact same argument, no single vote will ever change an election. Each individual reduction in emissions reduces emissions.
1 Like
I canāt help you if you donāt care
I thought the point of the thread was to convince us to care? Sure if you already care deeply about your personal CO2 impact then thereās lots of things you can do to reduce your emissions. Getting neutered would go a long way too.
1 Like
This list is outdated so hereās another that immediately came to mind: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/us/washington-election-ryan-roth.html
And another: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article180619776.html
1 vote can win an election. 1 hamburger doesnāt destroy the planet.
Actually, I think it should be 1,500 tons a day.
According to the analysis, one individual on a typical cruise ship emits roughly 421.43kg of COĀ² per day. Alternatively, one individual staying in a high-end hotel, using carbon-heavy transportation and choosing higher carbon activities emits just 81.33 kg of COĀ² per day. The carbon footprint of an average land-based vacationer is around 51.88kg, less than one-eighth of the average cruisegoer.
So, yeah, pretty bad.
Yes. Itās a form of charity imo.
Seems a pretty inefficient way to help poor people, imo.
Yeah until they ban heating/cooling, itās all just lip service
Climate change is real. But there isnāt much we can do to stop it
Yeah the fact that dealing with climate change means more expensive energy is a point that no one wants to own politically, but until we do itās all lip service.
And then you look at China building lots of new coal plantsā¦
Sounds like weāll just need to build a big sea wall around the East Coast and call it a day
1 Like
Itās not specifically about helping poor people. Itās about helping all future people.
But sure, I donāt know how efficient it is. Honestly I find most forms of charity dubious.
1 Like