3 ms·

A pound of meat isn't the same as a pound of carrots. In case you're wondering about climate impact per calorie instead of per pound/kg, here's an interesting

by tito 6y ago

A pound of meat isn't the same as a pound of carrots. In case you're wondering about climate impact per calorie instead of per pound/kg, here's an interesting article from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-... I see a lot of these charts that a pound of beef vs carrots. Just seems dumb, I would have to eat far more than a pound of carrots to match the calories of a pound of beef. Most data/infographic stuff in a climate world bugs me because it's just not well presented. The overall conclusion is the same -- eating meat is a huge carbon footprint compared to vegetables. Climate change has a marketing problem.

cik2e 6y ago
The energy per calorie is a very good insight that I hadn’t considered. I do agree that beef is a significant culprit and I tend to eat it rarely. But the environmental concern isn’t a consideration in my diet because it’s not something I’m willing to compromise on. Not only because I like meat, but for the fact that it’s a nutritional powerhouse that would take too much effort to emulate with a vegetarian diet. I try to do my share with respect to carbon by driving a hybrid, and plan on using the most energy efficient options when I own a house. Back to beef. My main reason for avoiding it is the cost. Especially with the more flavorful cuts being extra pricy. Perhaps the best way to lower consumption is a tax like what we have with cigarettes. But I can’t see any political will for this anytime soon in the US. It would be nice to see the more progressive countries in Europe lead the way, like they’ve done with other aspects of emissions control. Edit: typo
- tashoecraft 6y ago
  I think you saying it’s too much effort to replace beef is really just covering for you liking beef. Which is totally fine, but it’s really not much effort to replace beef out of your diet
  - cik2e 6y ago
    I referred to not being willing to replace meat in general, not beef specifically, due to the difficulty in getting a similar mix of nutrients, not to mention things that you can't get from vegetables, period. Here's a small list [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants#12 https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-ge...] but there are plenty more. Sure, some of them are non-essential but those are pretty damn useful for general health, cognitive performance, and athletics. Moreover, some of us respond poorly to carbs in terms of weight management and general well-being. I have ADHD and and a carb-heavy diet really messes with my symptoms. There aren't really any plants that provide enough protein without including a significantly greater amount of carbs so getting all of my calories from plants is a non-starter. I forgot to elaborate on the emissions/calorie issue in my comment (there's that ADHD). The link in the parent shows that many animal-based foods compare favorably with popular vegetables using the emissions/calorie metric. Direct link to the chart: https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1024w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/03/11/Food/Images/emissionsCHART_NUupdate.jpg?uuid=g3H2xqlGEeOKe8HGhOJnHw https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1024w/2010-2019/Wash... It feels good to see some vindication on the animal farming emissions issue. It's a huge positive that we can lower our emissions footprint without resorting to a fully plant-based diet.
    - palae 6y ago
      The thing is, when switching from an omnivore diet to a plant-based diet, meat is not replaced by tomatoes and broccolis (or vegetables in general), it is replaced by tofu, beans, lentils, rice, nuts, etc. which are all at the bottom of the list your linked.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - tito 6y ago
        I love this point, I believe it'll make its way into my day to day thinking on carbon.
    - 6y ago
tomjakubowski 6y ago
Calorie counts are better, but still gloss over all the nutritional differences between e.g. beef and carrots. Comparing ingredients piecemeal when they aren't nearly perfect substitutes doesn't make very much sense. If you reduced your meat intake by 1kg of beef per week or month, what would you replace it with to sustain your nutrition? It seems like it would be a fairer comparison to drum up reasonable examples of complete vegetarian, vegan, and omnivorous diets and work out a carbon footprint (or whatever ecological impact measure you prefer) of each backwards, from the plated food back to the source. Then look at the complete diets that have the lowest impact. I would still expect that vegan, vegetarian and very low-meat diets would do better than the typical diet in the US.
- tito 6y ago
  To that point you could simplify since both diets would have a lot in common. A salad, steak, and potatoes meal becomes salad, mushroom, and potatoes. So it's important to talk about what "substitutes" are.
loceng 6y ago
Indeed, nutrient and calorie density + the quality of proteins in the food source are all important.

by tito 6y ago

cik2e 6y ago

The energy per calorie is a very good insight that I hadn’t considered. I do agree that beef is a significant culprit and I tend to eat it rarely. But the environmental concern isn’t a consideration in my diet because it’s not something I’m willing to compromise on. Not only because I like meat, but for the fact that it’s a nutritional powerhouse that would take too much effort to emulate with a vegetarian diet. I try to do my share with respect to carbon by driving a hybrid, and plan on using the most energy efficient options when I own a house. Back to beef. My main reason for avoiding it is the cost. Especially with the more flavorful cuts being extra pricy. Perhaps the best way to lower consumption is a tax like what we have with cigarettes. But I can’t see any political will for this anytime soon in the US. It would be nice to see the more progressive countries in Europe lead the way, like they’ve done with other aspects of emissions control. Edit: typo

tashoecraft 6y ago
I think you saying it’s too much effort to replace beef is really just covering for you liking beef. Which is totally fine, but it’s really not much effort to replace beef out of your diet
- cik2e 6y ago
  I referred to not being willing to replace meat in general, not beef specifically, due to the difficulty in getting a similar mix of nutrients, not to mention things that you can't get from vegetables, period. Here's a small list [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants#12 https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-ge...] but there are plenty more. Sure, some of them are non-essential but those are pretty damn useful for general health, cognitive performance, and athletics. Moreover, some of us respond poorly to carbs in terms of weight management and general well-being. I have ADHD and and a carb-heavy diet really messes with my symptoms. There aren't really any plants that provide enough protein without including a significantly greater amount of carbs so getting all of my calories from plants is a non-starter. I forgot to elaborate on the emissions/calorie issue in my comment (there's that ADHD). The link in the parent shows that many animal-based foods compare favorably with popular vegetables using the emissions/calorie metric. Direct link to the chart: https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1024w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/03/11/Food/Images/emissionsCHART_NUupdate.jpg?uuid=g3H2xqlGEeOKe8HGhOJnHw https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1024w/2010-2019/Wash... It feels good to see some vindication on the animal farming emissions issue. It's a huge positive that we can lower our emissions footprint without resorting to a fully plant-based diet.
  - palae 6y ago
    The thing is, when switching from an omnivore diet to a plant-based diet, meat is not replaced by tomatoes and broccolis (or vegetables in general), it is replaced by tofu, beans, lentils, rice, nuts, etc. which are all at the bottom of the list your linked.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - tito 6y ago
      I love this point, I believe it'll make its way into my day to day thinking on carbon.
  - 6y ago

tomjakubowski 6y ago

Calorie counts are better, but still gloss over all the nutritional differences between e.g. beef and carrots. Comparing ingredients piecemeal when they aren't nearly perfect substitutes doesn't make very much sense. If you reduced your meat intake by 1kg of beef per week or month, what would you replace it with to sustain your nutrition? It seems like it would be a fairer comparison to drum up reasonable examples of complete vegetarian, vegan, and omnivorous diets and work out a carbon footprint (or whatever ecological impact measure you prefer) of each backwards, from the plated food back to the source. Then look at the complete diets that have the lowest impact. I would still expect that vegan, vegetarian and very low-meat diets would do better than the typical diet in the US.

tito 6y ago
To that point you could simplify since both diets would have a lot in common. A salad, steak, and potatoes meal becomes salad, mushroom, and potatoes. So it's important to talk about what "substitutes" are.

loceng 6y ago

Indeed, nutrient and calorie density + the quality of proteins in the food source are all important.