Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

cam.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#21

Post by cj »

war1025 wrote: post #2

> 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.

The article isn’t about vegetables being good “for you”.

It’s about a college cafeteria experimenting to reduce carbon emissions and the amount of land required to serve meals:

> Last year, University cafeterias (separate from the colleges) announced a 33% reduction in carbon emissions per kilogram of food purchased, and a 28% reduction in land use per kilogram of food purchased.

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#22

Post by tito »

gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #18
Ma8ee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it is controversial. I thought the huge environmental impact of meat eating was common knowledge.

Isn't it rather exaggerated? Doesn't agriculture as a whole cause around 11% of emissions but car driving and heating/cooling causes around 30%? 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/

Wish there was a good tool to give you an answer on this, or a way to poke around and be curious. http://energyliteracy.com/ gets close but it's USA only.

This article suggests livestock greenhouse gas emissions are equivalent to the entire transportation sector. Basically because methane and carbon dioxide have different effects on warming: https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-...

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#23

Post by OnlyOneCannolo »

tomdell wrote: post #3
war1025 wrote: post #2

> 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.

The truth is over the top?

It implicitly distorts the contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions relative to other sources. And it ignores the health effects of going meatless.

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#25

Post by tito »

OnlyOneCannolo wrote: post #23
tomdell wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is over the top?

It implicitly distorts the contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions relative to other sources. And it ignores the health effects of going meatless.

What most people miss is that methane (ie from cows) is more than an order of magnitude as impactful as carbon dioxide.

This source says methane is 84x the impact of carbon dioxide: https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhou...

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#26

Post by gvjddbnvdrbv »

tito wrote: post #22
gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it rather exaggerated? Doesn't agriculture as a whole cause around 11% of emissions but car driving and heating/cooling causes around 30%? 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/

Wish there was a good tool to give you an answer on this, or a way to poke around and be curious. http://energyliteracy.com/ gets close but it's USA only. This article suggests livestock greenhouse gas emissions are equivalent to the entire transportation sector. Basically because methane and carbon dioxide have different effects on warming: https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-...

I have absolutely no idea what anything means in that chart.

If you have a good source I would be delighted to read it.

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#27

Post by Ma8ee »

gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #18
Ma8ee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it is controversial. I thought the huge environmental impact of meat eating was common knowledge.

Isn't it rather exaggerated? Doesn't agriculture as a whole cause around 11% of emissions but car driving and heating/cooling causes around 30%? 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/

Agriculture causes around 10%, while transportation, including freight and flights causes around 30%.

Among the most effective things you can do yourself with minimal impact of your way of life is choosing to eat less meat.

Edit: the numbers I remembered was for Europe. Globally food production is 25%

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#28

Post by cj »

gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #18
Ma8ee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it is controversial. I thought the huge environmental impact of meat eating was common knowledge.

Isn't it rather exaggerated? Doesn't agriculture as a whole cause around 11% of emissions but car driving and heating/cooling causes around 30%? 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/

Quick googling: “ Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories”

It’s not just about emissions. It’s also about the massive amount of land required to produce meat vs. crops for human consumption.

Re: cutting out meat vs. driving, only one of those activities is necessary to survive for the very high percentage of the population who don’t have access to public transit.

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#29

Post by coderintherye »

maxharris wrote: post #24

Stop trying to nudge me. Focus instead on cultured meat, because that actually solves the fundamental problem.

I'm curious if you've tried Beyond Meat? Not saying it is comparable, but it is quite good in my opinion, much better than the old veggie burger options. Just interested in subjective opinions of people of how close it gets to being a viable alternative to people who currently eat meat.

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#30

Post by gvjddbnvdrbv »

Ma8ee wrote: post #27
gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it rather exaggerated? Doesn't agriculture as a whole cause around 11% of emissions but car driving and heating/cooling causes around 30%? 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/

Agriculture causes around 10%, while transportation, including freight and flights causes around 30%. Among the most effective things you can do yourself with minimal impact of your way of life is choosing to eat less meat. Edit: the numbers I remembered was for Europe. Globally food production is 25%

These are USA numbers correct? My numbers are whole world numbers.
Post reply on HN