Looks promising! I was hoping for a breakdown by type of animal product and animals spared, but it looks like the data for this wasn’t collected.
We could divide their animal product consumption reduction proportionally the same way as the their local population, or maybe flexitarians/reducetarians specifically, so we assume they reduced their animal product consumption uniformly and had similar proportions as their local populations. This might give us a rough ballpark estimate in terms of animals spared. (Also setting aside issues of supply and demand, international trade, etc..)
I agree it would be nicer to report actual spared animals, rather than generic “portions of meat”. We thought of using data about the average meat diet in the relevant countries, to be able to translate portions of meat into animal lives. But we eventually decided against it, because it would introduce even more assumptions and uncertainties into our analysis, which we felt had many uncertainties already. Given the amount of uncertainty that we already have (with over an order-of-magnitude between our lower and upper bounds), we felt that giving a too detailed breakdown might be inappropriate. In the end we decided to keep it simple and use the metric we had data on, hoping that “1 to 12 portions of meat per 1 ILS” would give readers a rough sense of the potential of this program to spare animal lives.
Looks promising! I was hoping for a breakdown by type of animal product and animals spared, but it looks like the data for this wasn’t collected.
We could divide their animal product consumption reduction proportionally the same way as the their local population, or maybe flexitarians/reducetarians specifically, so we assume they reduced their animal product consumption uniformly and had similar proportions as their local populations. This might give us a rough ballpark estimate in terms of animals spared. (Also setting aside issues of supply and demand, international trade, etc..)
Thank you!
I agree it would be nicer to report actual spared animals, rather than generic “portions of meat”. We thought of using data about the average meat diet in the relevant countries, to be able to translate portions of meat into animal lives. But we eventually decided against it, because it would introduce even more assumptions and uncertainties into our analysis, which we felt had many uncertainties already. Given the amount of uncertainty that we already have (with over an order-of-magnitude between our lower and upper bounds), we felt that giving a too detailed breakdown might be inappropriate. In the end we decided to keep it simple and use the metric we had data on, hoping that “1 to 12 portions of meat per 1 ILS” would give readers a rough sense of the potential of this program to spare animal lives.