Recent comments in /f/dataisbeautiful

DragonBank t1_j2varsm wrote

Reply to comment by mgsloan in 2022 Asset Return [OC] by rosetechnology

But even then the others aren't labeled with exchange rates in mind so it makes no sense. If I take a dollar and put it in equities I lose 25 pct. If I take a dollar and put it in dollars I have the same investment I started with. If I take a foreign currency and invest in a dollar I may make a gain, but if I take a foreign currency and invest it in us bonds or us assets I lose an amount that isn't the number pictured here.

8

Save-Ferris1 t1_j2v5iyw wrote

Reply to What is the lowest-carbon protein? by abercravest

> According to the analysis, beef generates 49.9kg of  CO2 equivalent, or CO2e, per 100g of protein.

For the Americans, thats 110lbs of CO2 equivalent for every 3.5oz of protein; that's less than a quarter pound. Cheese comes out to about ~24lbs of CO2 equivalent to the same 3.5oz.

Jesus Christ that's a lot. I've always been told animal protein was carbon intensive, but even if the numbers are over estimating by a gigantic amount, like 20%, those numbers are massive.

13

GratefulOctopus t1_j2v4ye3 wrote

Reply to comment by abercravest in What is the lowest-carbon protein? by abercravest

Thanks for the info!! It's definitely some cool data regardless. Yeah I could definitely see it not being a primary source of protein yet, I just remembered hearing a ted talk about how insect protein is starting to gain momentum because of how environmentally favorable it is. But eating bugs is a little freaky so here we are.

2

abercravest OP t1_j2v4kgy wrote

Reply to comment by GratefulOctopus in What is the lowest-carbon protein? by abercravest

That's a good point. While it isn't common in the western hemisphere, insect farming appears to be well established elsewhere. Perhaps there was a lack of studies or the amount of protein produced simply didn't make the cut?

The study authors had this to say about their sources:

>We derived data from a comprehensive meta-analysis, identifying 1530 studies for potential inclusion, which were supplemented with additional data received from 139 authors. Studies were assessed against 11 criteria designed to standardize methodology, resulting in 570 suitable studies with a median reference year of 2010. The data set covers ~38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products representing ~90% of global protein and calorie consumption.

3