Bullshit that it is not a good source, there is wide scientific consensus dairy is much more taxing for the environment. Only valid counter argument is that milk has more nutritional value, but this can easily be fixed by adding additional ingredients.
This graph shows soy is the clear winner across the board if you set off protein to g co2, but purely per glass cow milk is much more taxing for the environment as both graphs show
this analysis suffers from the same flawed methodology present in poore_nemecek 2018: they combine LCA studies, which cannot be done because the data is gathered using disparate methodology. to make matters worse, they didn’t actually do all his work themselves; they pulled in poore-nemecek as one of their references.
The sources are in the references to the papers that you’re presenting. The LCA studies themselves often come with a warning that it shouldn’t be combined with other LCA studies, but poore-nemecek actually took an even lazier approach were they compiled meta studies that were ignoring this guidance and didn’t actually source many if any LCA studies themselves. when reading the meta studies that they gathered, you can see that all of them say that LCA guidance discourages combining studies as they have done, but they’re just going to do it anyway.
feel free to read the references. you don’t have to read much past the abstract of most of poore-nemecek’s references to see that what I’m saying is true.
I don’t know if this can be substantiated
this relies on poore-nemecek 2018. I don’t find this to be a good source. do you have another?
Bullshit that it is not a good source, there is wide scientific consensus dairy is much more taxing for the environment. Only valid counter argument is that milk has more nutritional value, but this can easily be fixed by adding additional ingredients.
This graph shows soy is the clear winner across the board if you set off protein to g co2, but purely per glass cow milk is much more taxing for the environment as both graphs show
this analysis suffers from the same flawed methodology present in poore_nemecek 2018: they combine LCA studies, which cannot be done because the data is gathered using disparate methodology. to make matters worse, they didn’t actually do all his work themselves; they pulled in poore-nemecek as one of their references.
Don’t see you providing any sources mate
I don’t need sources to be skeptical. you made a claim. I’m asking you to support that claim with good science.
The sources are in the references to the papers that you’re presenting. The LCA studies themselves often come with a warning that it shouldn’t be combined with other LCA studies, but poore-nemecek actually took an even lazier approach were they compiled meta studies that were ignoring this guidance and didn’t actually source many if any LCA studies themselves. when reading the meta studies that they gathered, you can see that all of them say that LCA guidance discourages combining studies as they have done, but they’re just going to do it anyway.
it’s bad science.
Sure
feel free to read the references. you don’t have to read much past the abstract of most of poore-nemecek’s references to see that what I’m saying is true.