3 ms·
A point that seems to be lost on most people who advocate for a plant based diet is that not all plants have the same environmental impact. Among plants as a cl
by toasterlovin 8y ago
A point that seems to be lost on most people who advocate for a plant based diet is that not all plants have the same environmental impact. Among plants as a class, there is a 60x range in the amount of calories provided per unit of resources required. So it matters a lot which plants you replace meat consumption with.
Generally speaking, beans, grains, and plant oils provide a lot of calories per input, whereas leafy greens and berries provide less calories per input than meat. So, if you replace your meat consumption with a bunch of kale salads and berry smoothies, your diet probably has a similar environmental impact to a diet that includes meat. But if you replace your meat consumption with beans, rice, olive oil, etc. then you're probably reducing the environmental impact of your diet.
I wrote a blog post about this:
http://www.richardjones.org/why-kale-is-actually-terrible-for-the-environment/ http://www.richardjones.org/why-kale-is-actually-terrible-fo...
- barrow-rider 8y ago> A point that seems to be lost on most people who advocate for a plant based diet is that not all plants have the same environmental impact. I am reminded of the vast amounts of water used to grow almonds
- akskos 8y agoI can assure you that no vegan replaces meat with kale salads and berry smoothies.
- toasterlovin 8y agoDoes their grocery bill change as a result of not eating meat, though? If not, then there's probably no difference in environmental impact.
- justtopost 8y agoMy friends are living counterpoints to your blase assumption. Not to mention tons of avacadoes, which are notorious for their environmental impact.
- nicbou 8y agoIsn't this premise flawed though? I'd assume that even low-calorie plants are still way ahead of your average cow in terms of environmental impact. You have omitted methane emissions from that calculation, even though their impact is significant. You also ignored that plants produce oxygen instead of consuming it.
- toasterlovin 8y agoI don't think the premise is flawed. If plants have a 60x range in input (as proxied by cost) per calorie provided, then animals can consume plants at the top end of that range and still provide more calories per input than plants at the low end. 60x is a huge range. With regard to the methane from cows concern: just eat chicken or pork. Chicken is probably the most environmentally friendly meat (in terms of calories provided per input).