this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
1450 points (97.4% liked)

Greentext

6167 readers
677 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1450
Murica (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by LifeLemons@lemmy.ml to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
 

Anons argue in comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (12 children)

Human beings literally exhale CO2. This makes me curious what the actual carbon efficiency is when using a calorie to CO2 analysis factoring in the carbon footprint of the diet needed to fuel said travel.

Because IIRC carnivores are only 10% efficient, so this feels like a complicated problem. And then of course the carbon footprint of the manufacturing of various methods of transport and break even points over what periods of time.

[–] Tiefkuehlkost 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"carbon footprint of the diet needed to fuel said travel"

This only works under the assumption that people would only eat as much as they need to, looking at the increasing overweight problems in developed countries this is clearly not the case, most people would have eaten that much annyway.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

The reason I didn't discount it entirely was I recently saw a Townsend's episode on Pemmican and it discussed how the proliferation of that calorie dense food did literally fuel the manpower for entire industries whose productivity can be traced to Pemmican. But that's old times and I'm sure diet no longer conforms to that reality.

load more comments (10 replies)