4 ms·
This ignores so many aspects before jumping to a conclusion. You have to take into account the “packaging” and “processing” environmental cost as well, plus the
by jiofih 6y ago
This ignores so many aspects before jumping to a conclusion. You have to take into account the “packaging” and “processing” environmental cost as well, plus the fact that local, organic farmers will also have a significantly lower impact than what’s shown, which is 90% comprised of large scale industrial farming.
- netrus 6y agoWhy would that be? I would imagine "large scale industrial farming" to be quite efficient - animals don't get a lot of space there and are optimized to turn the food they are given into as many meat calories as possible. It's horrible for the animals, but efficient. Caring about the environment is about more than climate change, but if the target is to tackle climate change, the answer is NO meat, not local organic meat (and dairy).
- mamon 6y agoClimate change is a natural result of CO2 emissions, which are natural side effect of life. By fighting the climate change you're fighting the life itself :)
- jiofih 6y agoIt’s efficient in terms of output, but not necessarily environmentally friendly. The methods used, monoculture, the volume of waste generated, and the chemicals necessary to cope with it all can be damaging to a level much higher than adding up individual small farmers.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]