ourworldindata.org
Its like I never posted the very recent study that shows that food miles have a much greater impact than we thought.You're actually presenting this as some sort of sensible counter argument to reducing meat consumption?
Here. have a go at this. Choose beef and then tomatoes. And then feel stupid.
Climate change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint?
Check the environmental impact of what you eat and drink.www.bbc.co.uk
You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local
“Eat local” is a common recommendation to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet. How does the impact of what you eat compare to where it's come from?
Fuck me, Poore and Nemeck, 2018 again.Excellent piece here too:
View attachment 333161
Less meat is nearly always better than sustainable meat, to reduce your carbon footprint
Plant-based protein sources still have a lower footprint than the lowest-impact meat products.
It is a pretty pictureFuck me, Poore and Nemeck, 2018 again.
If I was interested in top flight pedantry, Id go back and count the number of times data from that paper has been posted up here in numerous guises (although, tbf, the last few iterations have all been extrapolated by ourworldindata).
But that's not what your latest post says.You're actually presenting this as some sort of sensible counter argument to reducing meat consumption?
Here. have a go at this. Choose beef and then tomatoes. And then feel stupid.
Climate change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint?
Check the environmental impact of what you eat and drink.www.bbc.co.uk
You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local
“Eat local” is a common recommendation to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet. How does the impact of what you eat compare to where it's come from?
If you tell the same lie often enough it becomes truth.
Not necessarily. Just looking at this thread the data is all over the place so no firm conclusions can be drawn from it.
Well that explains a lot then. All those scientists must be a bit confused, eh?
And there are newer studies than that suggesting food miles are actually much more important. I've posted one. As ever it was unread and ignored for more spam of the same stuff, which was discussed the first time it was posted...But that's not what your latest post says.
Alas I wish this was true, but its clear that the meat apologists on this thread just don't give a shit about it.
So does growing crops, possibly more so. The promotion of eating plants as being "cruelty free" is so far from the truth, only someone who has never grown anything could make that statement and mean it. Even on the tiniest scale, in my garden, I have to control slugs, caterpillars, spider mite, mice and flea beetle or half my veg would be gone. Meat eaters have just accepted the death of some different creatures, which happens in a highly regulated manner. Nature (of which we are a part) is far more cruel than animal agriculture. Im far more uncomfortable with poisoning rodents around grain silos etc than I am about abattoirs. Until we can photosynthesise, our food will always involve something else dying.
Theres no food that animals are "meant" to eat, other than that they have evolved to digest. Given that the ability to digest lactose is one of the newest examples of human evolution, if you have that genetic adapion, you have specifically evolved to eat dairy. Why and when was lactase persistence selected for? Insights from Central Asian herders and ancient DNA
Highly processed foods hardly have a good track record on the "being good for you" front, so I'd refute any claim that highly processed meat substitutes are in any way "better for you".
meat eating is falling in the west. It is significantly on the rise in China an Asia, largely as people come out of poverty. No amount of vegan proselytising here is going to make a gnats arses difference to meats impact upon climate change (and its environmental and health aspects are what bothers me, sorry).
Totally agree - because of land area, land use is seen as being the short term solution to buy time to move away from fossil fuels (carbon sequestration, cutting down on enteric methane, which has been here for millenia), but land use changes happen slowly - even more so if you want to avoid spiralling food costs, which is already happening due to slight variations in the global grain market (most grain is consumed in the country it is grown in, so whilst the Ukraine is responsible for 10% of the export market for grain, as a proportion of the entire market, its tiny).
if you wanna make a moralistic posture that wont achieve your stated goals, carry right on. Doing so strikes me as incredibly selfish, but its entirely up to you.
Not really - the whole reason we are in this mess is because, since the industrial revolution, we have been taking carbon sequestered millenia ago and adding it to the atmosphere by burning it. Ruminants existed in vast, vast numbers pre industrialisation, indeed, it is supposed that the mass extermination of Bison from the grasslands of the USA caused a small ice age. The methane cycle existed then, it exists now.
“You can prove anything with facts”
yeh but you should rethink pizzas with all the toppings, after about 3 the pizza gets really soggy. as far as possible i stick to two, namely pineapple and chilli (pref jalapenos)
Not forgetting the methane released from bogs and swamps.
It'll be the melting permafrost and methane hydrates from Arctic seas which do for us
Weird that this coincides with the advent of fracking (which releases fossil methane), innit?
It wont be quick or easy. But it will be quicker and easier than trying to convince the entire world not to eat meat and dairy.
Could be either/both, but the number of ruminants, globally continues to fall.
