That's only the third and weakest of Lomborg's points. The others are:
1. Food makes up only 20% of an average person's greenhouse emissions, and probably less if you're living a jetsetting Silicon Valley lifestyle of air-conditioned spaces and lengthy commutes.
2. The original calculation assumes you'll go 100% vegan, not just vegetarian, which for most people is a step too far.
Even excluding the third argument, Lomborg notes that you're looking at a 4.3% reduction at best.
As far as I can tell from the article, he's looking at only the direct emissions from agriculture, and ignoring land use changes, like being able to plant trees where we used to grow grain for beef.
What? Here in Iowa we get a significant fraction of the state energy budget from wind. More GW than California. Can't drive across the state without encountering 'wind farms', hundreds of giant generators extending in arrays to the horizon.
I’ve lived in Alberta and I’ve visited many parts of the US where the Mighty Truck is the preferred method of transportation, and their mileage is less than desirable. Then there is heating that must be done in the winter which will most likely be still done by burning nat gas.
Shows Iowa as 14th on emissions per capita and California is 6th from the bottom. So what are you trying to prove?
Aside: Iowa Farm Bureau is an insurance company that pretends to be the voice of farmers and “grass roots org”, it is also big a lobbying spender. Which makes me doubt both your intent and sources.
No that is not in dispute, but I also don’t see how what I said in the original comment is false or what your point is. All you have said is “What?” What what? You haven’t put any of my claims in dispute either, and I have given evidence that most states have a significantly higher emissions per capita as a whole than California, I couldn’t get more granular and current measurements for Bay Area as a whole so this will do for now as last I checked SV is part of California. The original person I was replying to has made no legitimate claims (backed with data) to defend their position, which is precisely what I called out. You made a comment about how Iowa has more wind power in response. Fine. So what? Iowa is ranked fifth when it comes to energy consumption per capita as well [1] while California is 48th. The majority of Iowa’s energy still comes from coal and natural gas. In 2017, California ranked second in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation and first as a producer of electricity from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources. Wind is practical the only source of renewable energy in Iowa and it’s total amount is dwarfed by what California is producing. So once again back to your original reply, what I have said that is wrong or incorrect that deserves only “what?” You can browse on EIA and see for yourself very clearly that per capita almost every other state is worse than California, that includes the Midwest.
"This is probably true for a significant portion of people in the Valley. Certainly more so than say people in Midwest US "
That was in dispute. California gets a tiny fraction of its power from wind, the total state less than Iowa produces (where did you get the 'dwarfed' notion?) while the Midwest gets up to 50%. In Iowa another large fraction is from the Palo nuclear plant. So, very little coal etc.
Coal's share of net electricity generation in Iowa declined from 76% in 2008 to 45% in 2018, but coal is still the state's largest source of net electricity generation. 45% is very little indeed.
Please fact check your claims next time.
California produces 28000 MW of renewables total which is way more than Iowa. California Coal power mix was about 3%, and lower in my community
1. Food makes up only 20% of an average person's greenhouse emissions, and probably less if you're living a jetsetting Silicon Valley lifestyle of air-conditioned spaces and lengthy commutes.
2. The original calculation assumes you'll go 100% vegan, not just vegetarian, which for most people is a step too far.
Even excluding the third argument, Lomborg notes that you're looking at a 4.3% reduction at best.