Founder of Eaternity here. Putting facts to the issue, we have collected the largest database to calculate the CO₂ emissions for food - and it is freely available: www.eaternity.org
Cool project! Forwarded to people at oekom-research.com I know.
Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet
21–30 of 71 posts
Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet
#22The vegan nonsensealists perhaps should consider the role of hunting and animal husbandry in the ability of humans to inhabit northern and semidesert regions of the planet and to sustain a population. It is also good idea to read about the causes of malnutrition in poor communities.
Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet
#23This article is long on assertions and devoid of facts. It is junk. To the author: post again when you can back up your statements.
Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet
#24TL;DR: Terrible article, I suggest not waste your time on it. Why? * Author writes """it’s more accurate to say that vegetarian diets are “less awful,” not “better,” than omnivorous diets""". He gives no hard numbers to back it up. Less awful IS OBVIOUSLY the same as better. According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and speciall…
> According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and specially a vegan diet, is A LOT less awful then an omni diet both environmentally, ethically and considering health impact.
Just a quick note: The "Cowspiracy" movie unfortunately presents its case by cherry picking scientific evidence and presenting much higher numbers than what is reasonable. Wikipedia has something about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy#Criticism
I recently saw that movie. Basically what the movie maker did was taking the highest number he could find and repeating it over and over again.
This is unfortunate, because the overall message is still very much true: Meat production causes a lot of greenhouse gas emissions and cutting them is a great opportunity. And NGOs are very reluctant to talk about it.
Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet
#25I don't eat meat not to solve any sustainability problems. I don't eat meat because of how the meat industry is treating the animals and the nature (By the way, most soy and grain is produced to feat our animals). I can give you a lot of examples for the planned economized genocide on other races than humans. But people, like the author of this text, don't want to hear arguments or examples like that. They don't buy…
That's not what this post is about (why people shouldn't eat meat). It's about the claim that vegetarian diets are better for the environment, which they are, but not to the extent that they'll solve our sustainable agriculture challenges. Please take your soapboxing to a place where it's on topic.
Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet
#26The author's very excited about urban gardens, but have we gotten anywhere close to cleaning up our cities well enough that we can grow food there without swallowing a bunch of lead in the process?
Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet
#27TL;DR: Terrible article, I suggest not waste your time on it. Why? * Author writes """it’s more accurate to say that vegetarian diets are “less awful,” not “better,” than omnivorous diets""". He gives no hard numbers to back it up. Less awful IS OBVIOUSLY the same as better. According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and speciall…
> According to many sources, that are well presented in the Cowspiracy documentary (among others) it is shown that a vegetarian diet, and specially a vegan diet, is A LOT less awful then an omni diet both environmentally, ethically and considering health impact. Just a quick note: The "Cowspiracy" movie unfortunately presents its case by cherry picking scientific evidence and presenting much higher numbers than what…
51% of CO2 emissions is just a number that was repeated.
there's also dead oceans by 2048 which is the most pessimistic estimate.
but some numbers are fine.
the amount of land that is used for livestock is incomparable. water pollution, dead ocean zones, all caused by animal agriculture.
the amount of environmental destruction and pollution is incomparable. more than 90% of destroyed Amazon rainforest was for the sole reason of raising more livestock.
yeah, CO2 equivalent footprint might not be 51% but the oil industry does less environmental damage than animal agriculture. highest CO2 footprint isn't even cars and transport but heating and cooling.
Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet
#28I think it entirely depends on the timescale. I like to imagine a distant future where all food production is automated. Staples, vegetables, and fruits (and fresh water) would be available to everyone for free. People wouldn't eat meat because of the environment. People wouldn't grow up eating meat, so eating a cow would be just as repulsive as eating a cat or a dog. It wouldn't even be a temptation.
> They’re so large, astronauts can see entire sections of the planet turn brown and die every Spring as farmers nuke the soil’s native biology to make way for the artificially imposed order of the grain field.
I don't know what to make of "artificially imposed order of the grain field." People have been artificially imposing order on the earth for thousands of years. Granted, it's on a much bigger scale today. Still, how do you propose feeding the earth without any artificial order?
In this future world, all of the machinery will run on solar and wind power. We will grow genetically modified crops so that we only need to use a small amount of pesticides and fertilizers. And just like all plants, these crops will absorb a lot of carbon dioxide and release a lot of oxygen.
I mean, even if this is still bad for the environment, would there even be any room for improvement? The only thing I can think of is somehow reducing the human population. That's a prickly subject.
And we're going to really have to think about all of this before we defeat aging.
Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet
#29While I think the solutions presented in this article sound fantastic (in both senses of the word, unfortunately; it sounds way too ambitious to be realistic in the current political climate), the attack on vegetarianism is disingenuous.
As the article itself points out: "Most of these staple crops — especially corn and soy — wind up in animal feed". So that means that eating meat has the same devastating effect (but on a larger scale, because animals eat a lot) as its strawman vegetarian diet of wheat, corn, soy and rice.
Of course vegetarianism isn't magically going to solve all the world's problems, but all other things being equal, eating less meat will reduce your ecological footprint. There's a lot more you can do, but eating less meat is an easy first step.
Re: Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet
#30I'm not sure what to make out of such a text. Basically what the text says is that plant-based food usually is less resource intense and thus better for the environment, but there are also other factors and plant-based food production isn't perfect. (Independent of the question whether all the other things he says are true.) So the headline is obviously strictly true, but highly misleading. A more accurate one would…
Uh, no. That is not what the article says at all . The text explicitly says that vegetarian diets are not part of the solution. Either now, or under the system he proposes. He's very clear that eating a fully vegetarian diet now is worse, footprint-wise, that eating a mildly omnivorous one. He's also very clear that while eating a vegetarian diet under his proposed system would be just about possible, it is built aro…
He's certainly trying to suggest that vegetarianism is worse, but he doesn't back it up. In fact, his off-hand remark that "Most of these staple crops — especially corn and soy — wind up in animal feed" undermines this point.