5 ms·

I think it’s very misleading to actually make this comparison, because it ignores the different types of water: green (rain) and blue (treated and irrigated).

I think it’s very misleading to actually make this comparison, because it ignores the different types of water: green (rain) and blue (treated and irrigated). Beef in particular consumes a lot of water, but a lot of it is green, which is much more environmentally friendly than blue water.

sdenton4 7y ago
Here's a site (with terrible UX...) from comparing liters/kg for various foods, broken down into green/blue/grey: https://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/pr... Beef lists there also at 15,415 liters/kg, with a 4% 'blue' (filtered/treated) component, which works out to 616.6 liters/kg - still double the total water kg/liter for the avocados (which, themselves, will have a green/blue/grey breakdown). (It's also not obvious to me that one should consider 'green' water as a completely free resource. Plants bred for fast growth with constant replacement will consume more water, which in turn won't find its way into aquifers.)
- village-idiot 7y ago
  And this is a much more nuanced breakdown. Double the blue water vs. the orders of magnitude that’s typically presented. Personally I believe that the health benefits of meat is well worth doubling the per kg blue water cost of my food. On the discussion of green water, that depends on location and animal husbandry technique. It does appear that some places we let pasture raised cattle roam can help with the replenishment of soil layers and also sequester carbon to boot. Managed intensive rotational grazing in particular is very promising. I think we desperately need to be having a discussion about better animal husbandry and land management (see: Brazil). But whenever I hear that all we need to do is “just” do one thing, my bullshit detector goes wild, and the idea that we can fix global warming by reducing meat consumption falls well into that category for me.
  - sdenton4 7y ago
    To be sure - the beef is using twice as much blue water as the TOTAL for avocados. My guess (looking at the listed breakdowns for other vegetables) is that the direct blue water comparison would be somewhere between 4x and 8x. It's certainly the case that there's no magic bullet - no one here (that I've noticed) has claimed that reducing meat consumption will 'fix' global warming. Conversely, people tend to become vegans for a range of reasons, in which environmental impact is just one facet... Many times a problem will require a range of solutions, and sometimes a solution helps with a range of problems.

sdenton4 7y ago

Here's a site (with terrible UX...) from comparing liters/kg for various foods, broken down into green/blue/grey: https://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/pr... Beef lists there also at 15,415 liters/kg, with a 4% 'blue' (filtered/treated) component, which works out to 616.6 liters/kg - still double the total water kg/liter for the avocados (which, themselves, will have a green/blue/grey breakdown). (It's also not obvious to me that one should consider 'green' water as a completely free resource. Plants bred for fast growth with constant replacement will consume more water, which in turn won't find its way into aquifers.)

village-idiot 7y ago
And this is a much more nuanced breakdown. Double the blue water vs. the orders of magnitude that’s typically presented. Personally I believe that the health benefits of meat is well worth doubling the per kg blue water cost of my food. On the discussion of green water, that depends on location and animal husbandry technique. It does appear that some places we let pasture raised cattle roam can help with the replenishment of soil layers and also sequester carbon to boot. Managed intensive rotational grazing in particular is very promising. I think we desperately need to be having a discussion about better animal husbandry and land management (see: Brazil). But whenever I hear that all we need to do is “just” do one thing, my bullshit detector goes wild, and the idea that we can fix global warming by reducing meat consumption falls well into that category for me.
- sdenton4 7y ago
  To be sure - the beef is using twice as much blue water as the TOTAL for avocados. My guess (looking at the listed breakdowns for other vegetables) is that the direct blue water comparison would be somewhere between 4x and 8x. It's certainly the case that there's no magic bullet - no one here (that I've noticed) has claimed that reducing meat consumption will 'fix' global warming. Conversely, people tend to become vegans for a range of reasons, in which environmental impact is just one facet... Many times a problem will require a range of solutions, and sometimes a solution helps with a range of problems.