3 ms·
This is a simple untruth. Vegetarianism is possible in specific ecological conditions (e.g. the Ganges Delta) and in those conditions it wins, economically, be
by crygin 6y ago
This is a simple untruth. Vegetarianism is possible in specific ecological conditions (e.g. the Ganges Delta) and in those conditions it wins, economically, because as you note it is notionally ideal. In a non-tropic or desert environment, vegetarianism is a wasteful use of resources that typically involves transport of goods from remote locations in the service of performative consumption.
- Quanttek 6y agoVegetarianism outside such regions might be more wasteful, but it is still mich less wasteful and has a much smaller environmental impact than an omnivore diet
- leadingthenet 6y agoCitation needed. It’s not entirely clear to me how that could possibly be the case, when pasture raised animals often graze land that is completely unsuitable for agriculture. They also eat tons of byproducts of agriculture that are not suitable for human consumption. This thing about how vegetarianism is sooooo much better for the environment is such a meme. Especially when you take into account what a tragedy modern industrial agriculture really is, with its monocrops, deforestation, and so on.
- crumbshot 6y agoThis is a decent, well-cited article on the subject: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local It summarises the differences in global greenhouse emissions between various types of food, and the contributions of the different sources of these emissions - farming, transport, land use change, and so on.
- leadingthenet 6y agoEven without going into the details, I can already see a major mistake that is made here. They cite emissions per kilogram, but that’s completely nonsensical. A kilo of meat does not equal a kilo of spinach in terms of calories or macro-/micro-nutrients. This is a mistake that I see very often when these kinds of comparisons are made.