Dataset confirms that a vegan diet is dramatically better across a range of environmental measures
Dataset confirms that a vegan diet is dramatically better across a range of environmental measures
Researchers have linked dietary data from over 55,000 individuals with data on the environmental impacts of the foods they eat. The team, from the Livestock, Environment and People (LEAP) project at the University of Oxford, found that the dietary impacts of vegans were around a third of those of hi...
You're viewing a single thread.
It is amazing how the focus shift from blaming gas and oil industries and focus on food. Blaming individuals, with a sub message ( you are the reason for climate change because you buy animal products) while big corporations and their investors, and ceos continue enjoying their massive wealth.
Disclaimer, didn't read the article but the title it triggering..
Why we can't ignore the meat industry's climate impact
We also need to address fossil fuels, but the meat industry is large enough in emissions to make us miss climate targets even if fossil fuels were eliminated today
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
(emphasis mine)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
There's not really a way around consumption being reduced. It's going to be hard to implement any systematic solutions to reducing meat consumption if people don't take that step themselves too
The environment is more than just greenhouse gases emissions
But I should also point out that there's more to the environment than just climate change which is why I would suggest at least skimming things before commenting for the future. The article and even its title ("across a range of environmental measures") include much more than just greenhouse gas emissions.
on the environmental impact of their diets was assessed in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, water pollution risk and biodiversity loss.
[...]
The impacts of vegans were a quarter of those of high meat eaters for greenhouse gas emissions, and land use, just 27% of the impacts for water pollution, 46% for water use and 34% for biodiversity.
Other studies and environmental metrics
Why best case production of animal products still come out worse than worse-case production of plants
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm
Many argue that this overlooks the large variation in the footprints of foods across the world. Using global averages might give us a misleading picture for some parts of the world or some producers. If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
[…]
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
Deforestation
Extensive cattle ranching is the number one culprit of deforestation in virtually every Amazon country, and it accounts for 80% of current deforestation
Draining desert's water
Correspondingly, our hydrologic modelling reveals that cattle-feed irrigation is the leading driver of flow depletion in one-third of all western US sub-watersheds; cattle-feed irrigation accounts for an average of 75% of all consumptive use in these 369 sub-watersheds. During drought years (that is, the driest 10% of years), more than one-quarter of all rivers in the western US are depleted by more than 75% during summer months (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. 2) and cattle-feed irrigation is the largest water use in more than half of these heavily depleted rivers
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=wffdocs
Biodiversity loss
Livestock farmers often claim that their grazing systems “mimic nature”. If so, the mimicry is a crude caricature. A review of evidence from over 100 studies found that when livestock are removed from the land, the abundance and diversity of almost all groups of wild animals increases
Increased synthetic fertilizer usage for animal products
Thus, shifting from animal to plant sources of protein can substantially reduce fertilizer requirements, even with maximal use of animal manure
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344922006528
Etc.
There's a number more but this comment is already getting too long
One can fight oil and gas on a plant based diet just as well.
This is a simple choice each individual makes three times a day, what to eat.
Doesn't need political approval, doesn't need majorities, no investment and no infrastructure required. If you understand how serious the climate crisis is, eating plant based should come as a no brainer. And if you understand, you won't stop there.
It's still a systemic crisis which cannot be solved on the individual level, true. In an ideal world, plant based diets would become the norm through various means. But why wait for that if you understand it's the right thing to do?
industry serves people's demands. it's one way to influence agri industry.
Industry also drives people's demands fwiw, without lobbying, subsidy, advertising, and the cultural dominance of meat production those things have brought about, meat consumption wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today
There is simply too much in life to care about. And we all care about different things. And nobody can care about all the things that we should care about. Even more so when caring about a cause involves making sacrifices in order to support that cause.
So without systemic change, you will never convince a critical mass of individuals to care enough to sacrifice enough to make a meaningful difference.
So the focus on the individual as the unit of change is as good as saying "do nothing".
Well,.I personally like to bring some compassion into my life. it's not possible in all parts of life at all times.
But honestly, it just seems like a no brainer to not eat meat. Such a cruel and pointless pleasure. The only real argument is that it tastes good. Taste being such an ephemeral experience.
You're upset because you don't want to accept your piece of the pie when it comes to responsibility. This is childish.
The title should trigger you, but not too be upset with billionaires; although certainly you can be upset with them for their much larger pieces of the pie.
They don't just consume more, they spend a shit ton of money to make sure the working class consumes more too.
calling people childish doesn't change whether they're right.
✨it's both✨
Both are driven by corporations but both can also be impacted somewhat - both by reducing carbon and harming corporation's profits - with individual choice making. Both will also ultimately only be fully rectified by a new economic order.
Rather than looking it as shifting the blame, could you not see it as another way in which you can make an impact?
We are where we are and we collectively need to reduce our environmental impact. Being conscious of what you eat is one way to do that, if you want to help.