Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
there simply isn't any reliable data to support this claim.
There is:
https://www.wri.org/insights/climate-impact-behavior-shifts
Other than going car free (not possible in many countries where roads are just not bikable or walkable) not flying (yeah, you probably shouldn't and personally I rarely ever do) and switching your home to green energy (again, not really possible in some countries plus high up fron costs keep it impossible for many) the biggest impact is achieved through veganism.
Having fewer children is the biggest https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
Yeah, I guess that makes sense even without needing a source
i don't find this paper compelling evidence that being vegan has significant impact. it relies heavily on ivanova(2020), and additionally cites poore-nemecek(2018). ivanova, themselves, rely heavily on poore-nemecek for the data about food impacts.
so the question is: do you trust poore-nemecek 2018? i don't. meta-analysis of LCA studies is bad science, and poore-nemecek not only designed a poor study, they didn't bother acknowledging the problems their methods could incur.
Why don't you bring a source to contradict?
This is absolutely not the only paper to support my claim
the rational thing to do, if there is insufficient evidence for a claim, is just to suspend judgement. it's possible their conclusion is correct, but the evidence used to support it is insufficient.
dismissing your source doesn't require a contradictory study.
there are probably a thousand other things people could do. this study, for instance, didn't account for the impact of sabotaging fossil fuel extraction, refinement, or transportation infrastructure. almost anyone can turn a valve. by limiting the scope of this study to consumer choices, they have chosen to artificially limit the possibilities.
That is illegal. while you can choose to do illegal things, it just makes you look like a troll to suggest it as a viable option.
there are still probably thousands of options besides the four proposed.
Wow you really want to justify eating meat.
this accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith