Less meat is nearly always better than sustainable meat, to reduce your carbon footprint

ourworldindata.org Less meat is nearly always better than sustainable meat, to reduce your carbon footprint

Despite large differences in farming practices across the world, plant-based protein sources still have a lower footprint than the lowest-impact meat products.

From https://sh.itjust.works/post/1278677

plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

19 comments

- this is one of those things that is true but taken to far. If I stop eating meat it will not end the meat industry but if I am I am supporting it and the carbon it uses to produce the meat I eat and buy. The more people who don't buy meat the more it becomes unprofitable versus growing food. That being said I eat meat and I am trying to limit beef as me going from eating beef to chicken/pork has a more massive effect than a person going from chicken to beans. Im surprised at lamb, shrimp, and chesse on the chart though and wonder about goats. I assume cheese assume from cow but given lambs numbers and that cheese is generally from cow, goat, sheep im not sure.
- 'Systems change on a societal level's would mean either ending subsidies for animal agriculture in general, and investing that money into more sustainable food sources, or banning animal agriculture altogether. But every time this is mentioned, people throw a fit and threaten violent action because meat prices will go up and they feel entitled to their cheap burgers, no matter what the cost to the planet.
  These pieces are not meant to shame you, they are meant to try to make people demand that these effective changes be made. But for as long as people insist that they shouldn't have to change a single thing about their lifestyle, no change will ever get made.
- It can guide policy decisions (e.g. "Is it more important to subsidize/mandate sustainable meat production or phase it out all together?"), can make voters think differently about topics, which in turn influences politics (in democracies) and can be a simple way to put into perspective the impact of millionaires and billionaires compared to average people.
  Also I've heard people justify flying a lot because the "carbon footprint" is made up by the fossil fuel industry, which in my eyes is the same argument as "My country only makes up X% of greenhouse emissions so we shouldn't implement a carbon tax/invest in renewable energy/... until China/the US do".
- It is, but also, if you aren't farming your food, your life will almost certainly need to change dramatically.
- Animal products are incredibly harmful to the climate and are inherently wasteful.
  Those corporations get their money from people like you.
  Yes regulation would be the best to stop them but you know that's not gonna happen any time soon, especially when everyone refuses to change their own habits, politicians aren't gonna force through regulations that get people angry because they want their steaks.
  Why do you want to continue to participate in something bad until it's legally not allowed anymore?
  Why not do what you can (stop consuming animal products) while also advocating for regulation and political change?
  What does holding evil corporations accountable look like if not refusing to give them your money?
- Absolutely correct. Also guess who coined and popularized the "carbon footprint"?
  No, it's not a scientific study or a government or an NGO. It was big oil.
- And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger, but a private jet produces more than 10,000x the CO2 per km. Everyone can do their part to reduce overall CO2, but the rich and powerful are destroying the planet at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than you or I simply because it's convenient for them.
  We should probably stop squabbling over who's corporate version of highly-processed, manufactured, plant-based meat and food products we're going to substitute for animal proteins if we really care about worldwide carbon levels.
  
  People exercising doesn't create a comparable amount of pollution as any petromeum based vehicle.
  Honestly your point makes it sound like people should not exercise. Is that really your hot take?
  
  And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger
  That's not right. This studyabout biking vs driving with different diets. inflates the carbon output for bikers by subtracting the calories for car drivers, but not for bicyclists.
  It assumes too much and is so generalized nothing can really be gleaned from the findings.
  Walking and biking are more environmentally sound than driving
  Not everyone drives a "fuel-efficient" car (25 mpg according to the article), in fact the most popular car being sold are Ford F150s with mpg around 15-20. And even mpg is not a constant if you consider traffic or inclination.
  I 100% agree that the wealthy are killing us much much faster.
  
  And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger
  Because of the extra calories you burn? Do you have a source for that?

Good read that I'll be sharing.
Sure, "carbon footprint" and "voting with your wallet" are ways to put the blame on the consumer but it also sends a message when the bottom line starts to shrink.

19 comments