this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
230 points (92.3% liked)

memes

20560 readers
1274 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Yes, obviously AI is emitting way too much. It shouldn't even be producing 0.2% of global emissions, let alone 2%. My main grievance is that no one ever talks about improving industrial and agricultural processes even though they produce around 29% of emissions and 20% of emissions respectively.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A lot of the emissions from food are not things that are already in the carbon cycle.

  • Deforestation to turn forest into farmland.

  • Fossil fuels for equipment and to manufacture fertiliser.

  • Methane from animals is significantly more potent than if that same carbon was released as CO2.

[–] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

This is why I say emissions are not a cover-all and I'm tired of them being compared equally

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

But all of those are net emissions?

[–] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Can I ask how methane is a net emission with water and carbon dioxide? They all affect the planet differently while also being "GHG emissions"

I'd also like to add after thinking about it how the location of these emissions also matters. Jet planes have a larger impact with their emissions over other travel in part because the higher altitude increases the greenhouse potential of its emissions. So again, if we just count "GHG emissions" as if the tons of GHG emitted is the only factor not the duration the gas exists in the atmosphere, the location of emission, or if it is dumping sequestered carbon.

Because if we look at how cows produce methane, it's the bacteria in the cow's stomach that produces that methane, bacteria that would produce methane on rotting biomass as well. What's the actual net difference between natural decay and accelerated cow digestion. There's lots of agricultural produce like bananas where a meaningful amount of production goes to waste and decays. Is this waste and the emissions that happen from the waste accounted in the "GHG emissions" of eating bananas?

This is all before getting into weird GHGs like sulfur hexafluoride as it has a global warming potential 23 thousand times higher than carbon dioxide. So are we counting it by the ton as if it is the same as carbon dioxide by the ton?