9 ms·
It's healthier for the planet and your conscience.
by blueadept111 7y ago
It's healthier for the planet and your conscience.
- kardos 7y agoWhich is worse for the environment: growing one burger's worth of cow, or burning 15 min of propane to cook the burger?
- dymk 7y agoCook it on an electric stove.
- hellofunk 7y agoYes but, make sure your electricity is from a renewable source as well!
- kardos 7y agoThis is an answer to a different question
- dymk 7y agoWe can ask many different sorts of questions. It doesn't take much imagination to come to the conclusion that you don't need propane to cook a burger.
- kardos 7y agoSure.... what is the most environmentally friendly way to cook a burger is an interesting question too. Slow cooker? Microwave? Barbecue, but cook several at once to reduce the per burger emission? But the reality is that barbecueing a burger is a common way to cook them and I maintain that it is an interesting question to contrast the barbecueing impact to the growing impact..
- dymk 7y agoCook any number at a time by any method that consumes electricity and it doesn't matter, if that electricity comes from a renewable source.
- airstrike 7y agoGrowing one burger's worth of cow. The propane can easily be replaced with a different cooking method.
- throwaway66920 7y agoI don’t know why this question matters but it’s still the cow...
- kardos 7y agoIt does matter. If the propane is 10x the impact of growing the burger, you're not saving much by switching to a 'beyond burger'. Meanwhile if it's the other way around, the 'saving the environment' argument holds some weight.
- laughinghan 7y agoBy the same principle, if 10x as many burgers are cooked without propane than with propane, then your question is completely irrelevant. Given that propane is about 5% of US home's primary heating fuel whereas electricity and natural gas together are 80%, that seems likely: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18131 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18131
- zachrose 7y agoDoing both is worse than the latter.
- magduf 7y agoGrowing one cow requires many acres of the Amazon rainforest to be chopped down. You can cook a burger with electric heat, which can be generated with solar or wind power.
- kazinator 7y agoA more reasonable statement is that increasing the scope of livestock operation in Brasil by one cow requires additional acres to be chopped down. The specific figure seems implausible; you'd think that a cleared acre can support a bunch of cows, not just one.
- magduf 7y agoNo, not really. The land there isn't actually good for grazing like other places (the American plains states for instance), so you need more acreage per cow.
- yellowapple 7y agoOr they could import feed, or (someday in the hopefully-near future) they could grow the feed themselves in vertical farms (and/or grow more space-efficient crops for feed).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- VBprogrammer 7y agoTo say it requires many acres to be chopped down is a stretch.
- magduf 7y agoNo, it's not a stretch, because that's literally what they're doing in the Amazon right now. They're razing enormous swathes of forest so that they can grow more cows.
- sp332 7y agoWell if you cook your burger for 15 minutes, the burger itself will start contributing to greenhouse gas emissions as well as particulates...
- kardos 7y agoIt takes some time to heat a grill.