this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2026
447 points (97.9% liked)

Science Memes

20887 readers
1340 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone
447
Save the planet, hold your breath (lemmy.ml)
submitted 5 days ago by FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://toast.ooo/post/15393949

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 53 points 5 days ago (4 children)

So, on the face of it, we humans are a significant contributor to global warming. But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2. In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming.

I guess you could've been less angry if you were able to read past the first paragraph

[–] toast@retrolemmy.com 25 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Over the years, I've put on a few pounds. The way I figure it, I'm sequestering carbon.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm always looking for logical reasons to stay plump.

I'm adding this one to my short list.

  1. Easier to float in water. Less likely to drown.

  2. Easier to not die of hypothermia

  3. Hard seats are less hard with tush cush

  4. Animals seem to like plump humans more (maybe they assume we know where the food is).

  5. Lower carbon footprint.

[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago

Lower carbon footprint.

Deeper footprint

[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 days ago

Infowars style of article reading

[–] SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

But those are only half truths. They're omitting the fact, that a lot of the biomass we're eating comes from farming. Those plants that collect carbon dioxide from the atmosphere use a lot of synthetic fertilizers to grow, which itself uses A LOT of fossil energy to be produced. A lot of that plant biomass is fed to livestock to produce different kinds of foods that the market^TM^ demands, while emitting methane and ammonia and nitrous oxides, some of which are far worse greenhouse gasse, than CO2.

And then there's the whole issue of food waste and bullshit products you can buy at the supermarket that might contribute a little bit to your ability to exhale CO2 but come with insane amounts of useless packaging (made from petrol, and the best case scenario for them is, that they're going to be burned in a waste incinerator later).

People breathing is breaking the natural carbon cycle in lots of places, and part of the problem is, that they are being fed by capitalism.

[–] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They're omitting the fact, that a lot of the biomass we're eating comes from farming. Those plants that collect carbon dioxide from the atmosphere use a lot of synthetic fertilizers to grow, which itself uses A LOT of fossil energy to be produced.

The CO2 emissions per calorie of food varies almost 3 whole orders of magnitude between different food types:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore

At the same time, our CO2 exhalation is about the same per calorie of food, regardless of source. So it's more fair to describe our baseline biological needs and bodily functions separately from our economic consumption of the products we prefer to consume (food or otherwise).

So I still think the focus on the raw calorie count of our consumption (and the accompanying CO2 exhalation) obscures, rather than explains, how our food consumption contributes to climate change.

[–] SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago

I agree with everything you're saying.

I think it should have been clear from my text, that imho the issue lies in food production rather than food consumption and that what kinds of food you're eating and how it was produced is the part of this issue, that you have some control over. I mean, consumers can't buy what "the market^TM^" don't offer and yadda yadda yadda, but at least you can do more about it than about the fact, that you need to breathe at all. (Apart from drastic measures, that I neither expect nor recommend)

[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago

Very insightful. Now deliver it in rage bait format so more people understand

[–] bellsfry@thelemmy.club 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yea people really need to stop getting angry so quickly at headlines