3 ms·
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 be
by 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 agoTo 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.