Feddit UK

3,497 readers
128 users here now

Who are we?

Feddit.uk is UK-centric, with integration to the wider Fediverse.
We tend to focus on UK-interest communities, others are welcome.

The name is a shortening of "federate it".
Want to share a thing? Share it with the fediverse, or, fed-it.

What are the rules here?

Rules apply on this instance, and when using an account from this instance to interact with other instances.
Administrators may warn or ban for breaches of the rules, or the spirit of the rules.

Where should I start?

Here

Elsewhere

Frontends

Donation Link

This site does not serve adverts.
OpenCollective donate button
OpenCollective donor counter link

Contact

Matrix

Uptime status

Fediseer

Fediseer guarantees

Fediseer endorsements

Threads

Meta's activitypub network has been blocked as a default.
If you believe there is a good case for this not to be, please start a thread in the feddit.uk community.

Banner

Credit for the iconic banner --> https://joelgoodman.net

founded 1 year ago
ADMINS
1
 
 

All environmental indicators showed a positive association with amounts of animal-based food consumed. Dietary impacts of vegans were 25.1% (95% uncertainty interval, 15.1–37.0%) of high meat-eaters (≥100 g total meat consumed per day) for greenhouse gas emissions, 25.1% (7.1–44.5%) for land use, 46.4% (21.0–81.0%) for water use, 27.0% (19.4–40.4%) for eutrophication and 34.3% (12.0–65.3%) for biodiversity. At least 30% differences were found between low and high meat-eaters for most indicators. Despite substantial variation due to where and how food is produced, the relationship between environmental impact and animal-based food consumption is clear and should prompt the reduction of the latter.

2
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/5586412

Fig. 2: Relative environmental footprint from GHG emissions of diet groups in comparison to high meat-eaters (>100 g d−1).

Fig. 3: Relative environmental footprint from GWP100, land use, water use, eutrophication potential and biodiversity impact of diet groups in comparison to high meat-eaters (>100 g d−1).

3
 
 

Fig. 2: Relative environmental footprint from GHG emissions of diet groups in comparison to high meat-eaters (>100 g d−1).

Fig. 3: Relative environmental footprint from GWP100, land use, water use, eutrophication potential and biodiversity impact of diet groups in comparison to high meat-eaters (>100 g d−1).

4
 
 

There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

5
view more: next ›