• betanumerus@lemmy.caEnglish
    8·
    22 hours ago

    The CO2 we breath out is recycled from carbon that is already on the Earth’s surface. But much of the food we eat relies on fertilizer synthesized using fossil methane. That fossil methane is added to the atmosphere during production of synthetic fertilizer.

    Only people relying on food from synthetic fertilizer contribute to global warming, but that includes almost everyone because food labels don’t mention it.

    Food producers do not tell us how much fossil emissions are required to make the food they sell us.

  • Jax@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    4·
    1 day ago

    I mean sure, breathing isn’t the problem, but all that breathing leads to humans continuing to burn things so that they can have easier lives.

    Ultimately, breathing does lead to a polluted world. In a very technical sense.

  • applebusch (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    37·
    2 days ago

    capitalists:

    people arent having enough babies! we need you in the office 24/7! your breathing is causing global warming! produce value and then die you pieces of shit!

  • ceenote@lemmy.worldEnglish
    94·
    2 days ago

    Based on the pattern of, well, everything else, the most benefit would come if the billionaires stop breathing first.

  • cub Gucci@lemmy.todayEnglish
    531·
    2 days ago

    So, on the face of it, we humans are a significant contributor to global warming. But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2. In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming.

    I guess you could’ve been less angry if you were able to read past the first paragraph

    • toast@retrolemmy.comEnglish
      26·
      2 days ago

      Over the years, I’ve put on a few pounds. The way I figure it, I’m sequestering carbon.

      • daannii@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        2 days ago

        I’m always looking for logical reasons to stay plump.

        I’m adding this one to my short list.

        1. Easier to float in water. Less likely to drown.

        2. Easier to not die of hypothermia

        3. Hard seats are less hard with tush cush

        4. Animals seem to like plump humans more (maybe they assume we know where the food is).

        5. Lower carbon footprint.

    • SpongyAneurysm@feddit.orgEnglish
      81·
      2 days ago

      But those are only half truths. They’re omitting the fact, that a lot of the biomass we’re eating comes from farming. Those plants that collect carbon dioxide from the atmosphere use a lot of synthetic fertilizers to grow, which itself uses A LOT of fossil energy to be produced. A lot of that plant biomass is fed to livestock to produce different kinds of foods that the marketTM demands, while emitting methane and ammonia and nitrous oxides, some of which are far worse greenhouse gasse, than CO2.

      And then there’s the whole issue of food waste and bullshit products you can buy at the supermarket that might contribute a little bit to your ability to exhale CO2 but come with insane amounts of useless packaging (made from petrol, and the best case scenario for them is, that they’re going to be burned in a waste incinerator later).

      People breathing is breaking the natural carbon cycle in lots of places, and part of the problem is, that they are being fed by capitalism.

      • sparkyshocks@lemmy.zipEnglish
        1·
        24 hours ago

        They’re omitting the fact, that a lot of the biomass we’re eating comes from farming. Those plants that collect carbon dioxide from the atmosphere use a lot of synthetic fertilizers to grow, which itself uses A LOT of fossil energy to be produced.

        The CO2 emissions per calorie of food varies almost 3 whole orders of magnitude between different food types:

        https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore

        At the same time, our CO2 exhalation is about the same per calorie of food, regardless of source. So it’s more fair to describe our baseline biological needs and bodily functions separately from our economic consumption of the products we prefer to consume (food or otherwise).

        So I still think the focus on the raw calorie count of our consumption (and the accompanying CO2 exhalation) obscures, rather than explains, how our food consumption contributes to climate change.

        • SpongyAneurysm@feddit.orgEnglish
          1·
          23 hours ago

          I agree with everything you’re saying.

          I think it should have been clear from my text, that imho the issue lies in food production rather than food consumption and that what kinds of food you’re eating and how it was produced is the part of this issue, that you have some control over. I mean, consumers can’t buy what “the marketTM” don’t offer and yadda yadda yadda, but at least you can do more about it than about the fact, that you need to breathe at all. (Apart from drastic measures, that I neither expect nor recommend)