11–20 of 103 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? As a rule of thumb, each layer of indirection in the food chain retains only 10% of the energy from the previous layer. If we eat the stuff we give to cows (which is what vegetarians do) then we would need only 10% of the land to farm it.
What unit of energy? Calories?
> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Well that's a bit over the top... Seems like they could have stuck with the "vegetables are good for you" line and had just as relevant of an article.
> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Well that's a bit over the top... Seems like they could have stuck with the "vegetables are good for you" line and had just as relevant of an article.
Is it? As a rule of thumb, each layer of indirection in the food chain retains only 10% of the energy from the previous layer. If we eat the stuff we give to cows (which is what vegetarians do) then we would need only 10% of the land to farm it.
My point being the problem is not meat which is a natural part of our diet (and is traditionally raised on land not well suited to crops) but the crazy frankenmeat many are reduced to eating due to overpopulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is over the top?
Because no vegetable farm ever caused habitat destruction or environmental damage...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? As a rule of thumb, each layer of indirection in the food chain retains only 10% of the energy from the previous layer. If we eat the stuff we give to cows (which is what vegetarians do) then we would need only 10% of the land to farm it.
What unit of energy? Calories?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer...
> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Well that's a bit over the top... Seems like they could have stuck with the "vegetables are good for you" line and had just as relevant of an article.
I don’t think it is controversial. I thought the huge environmental impact of meat eating was common knowledge.
So if we all stopped eating meat we could cut emissions but a couple of % but if we all stopped driving and turned our heating down/up we could actually make a real difference?
Edited with real numbers from https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? As a rule of thumb, each layer of indirection in the food chain retains only 10% of the energy from the previous layer. If we eat the stuff we give to cows (which is what vegetarians do) then we would need only 10% of the land to farm it.
Being pedantic. If we eat the stuff they feed to the cows I eat we would die. Grass is not human digestible. My point being the problem is not meat which is a natural part of our diet (and is traditionally raised on land not well suited to crops) but the crazy frankenmeat many are reduced to eating due to overpopulation.
> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Well that's a bit over the top... Seems like they could have stuck with the "vegetables are good for you" line and had just as relevant of an article.
Is it? As a rule of thumb, each layer of indirection in the food chain retains only 10% of the energy from the previous layer. If we eat the stuff we give to cows (which is what vegetarians do) then we would need only 10% of the land to farm it.