4 ms·

It's not meat that's bad for the environment, it's the large scale factory farming methods. There are plenty of veggie farms that damage the environment too.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Which, unfortunately, feed us all. Except for a few fortunate folks with room to grow some fraction of their own food.
- ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago
  It needs to be more distributed, but that makes food more expensive and not enough people want to pay those higher prices.
the_gastropod 7y ago
Eating from a lower trophic level is generally more efficient than eating from a higher one.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  I thought it was the other way, that the further up the food chain the more concentrated nutrients were and the higher the energy density. Eating a cube of lamb is more efficient than eating grass, surely?
  - belltaco 7y ago
    More efficient if you're starving and need some calories immediately without having to gather grass. Not efficient in terms of environmental resources invested. How much grass being eaten by the lamb resulted in a pound of lamb? How much water did the lamb consumer per pound of weight? From the article: >a plant-based burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 45% less energy, has 99% less impact on water scarcity, and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of traditional U.S. beef.
- viklove 7y ago
  Unfortunately some plants like rice are worse than livestock. Rice cultivation produces significant amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas worse than carbon dioxide itself.
senorjazz 7y ago
> it's the large scale factory farming methods yes and no. With the massive increase of meat consumption, there needs to be more livestock, which require more land, even if free ranged (unsure of correct term here, but non-factory industrial methods). This land, in lots of cases requires cutting down forests and the greenhouse gas releases of having such a large amount of livestock
shlant 7y ago
> "It's not meat that's bad for the environment, it's the large scale factory farming methods Best estimates show that 70%+ of cows and 98%+ of all other meat in the US comes from factory farms(CAFO's)[1], so to say "it's the large scale factory farming methods" is describing most meat people consume. So in this context, MOST meat IS bad for the environment > "There are plenty of veggie farms that damage the environment too" I'm hearing these kind of lazy whataboutism's a lot lately. They are mostly not well thought through, knee-jerk defenses in response to having lifestyle choices/beliefs questioned. Most recently it was "soy beans for vegan products are also causing rainforest destruction" as if it's even slightly comparable to animal agriculture destruction. Do you have any examples or data to back up this statement? 1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iUpRFOPmAE5IO4hO4PyS4MP_kHzkuM_-soqAyVNQcJc/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iUpRFOPmAE5IO4hO4PyS...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Which, unfortunately, feed us all. Except for a few fortunate folks with room to grow some fraction of their own food.

ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago
It needs to be more distributed, but that makes food more expensive and not enough people want to pay those higher prices.

the_gastropod 7y ago

Eating from a lower trophic level is generally more efficient than eating from a higher one.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
I thought it was the other way, that the further up the food chain the more concentrated nutrients were and the higher the energy density. Eating a cube of lamb is more efficient than eating grass, surely?
- belltaco 7y ago
  More efficient if you're starving and need some calories immediately without having to gather grass. Not efficient in terms of environmental resources invested. How much grass being eaten by the lamb resulted in a pound of lamb? How much water did the lamb consumer per pound of weight? From the article: >a plant-based burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 45% less energy, has 99% less impact on water scarcity, and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of traditional U.S. beef.
viklove 7y ago
Unfortunately some plants like rice are worse than livestock. Rice cultivation produces significant amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas worse than carbon dioxide itself.

senorjazz 7y ago

> it's the large scale factory farming methods yes and no. With the massive increase of meat consumption, there needs to be more livestock, which require more land, even if free ranged (unsure of correct term here, but non-factory industrial methods). This land, in lots of cases requires cutting down forests and the greenhouse gas releases of having such a large amount of livestock

shlant 7y ago

> "It's not meat that's bad for the environment, it's the large scale factory farming methods Best estimates show that 70%+ of cows and 98%+ of all other meat in the US comes from factory farms(CAFO's)[1], so to say "it's the large scale factory farming methods" is describing most meat people consume. So in this context, MOST meat IS bad for the environment > "There are plenty of veggie farms that damage the environment too" I'm hearing these kind of lazy whataboutism's a lot lately. They are mostly not well thought through, knee-jerk defenses in response to having lifestyle choices/beliefs questioned. Most recently it was "soy beans for vegan products are also causing rainforest destruction" as if it's even slightly comparable to animal agriculture destruction. Do you have any examples or data to back up this statement? 1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iUpRFOPmAE5IO4hO4PyS4MP_kHzkuM_-soqAyVNQcJc/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iUpRFOPmAE5IO4hO4PyS...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]