this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
682 points (98.6% liked)

Linux

14869 readers
185 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

xu didn't conduct any LCA studies at all. they combined multiple LCA studies

[–] rjwilliamson@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] rjwilliamson@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago

You are a fucking moron