4 ms·
> It is more like: replace a steak with a head of broccoli from your local CSA. That would likely be very net positive in terms of emissions Except the brocoll
by iammisc 5y ago
> It is more like: replace a steak with a head of broccoli from your local CSA. That would likely be very net positive in terms of emissions
Except the brocolli is less nutritious and less caloric than the steak. 8oz of steak is more calorie dense and is a form of complete nutrition, whereas a head of brocolli gives you a very tiny amount of calories, some fiber, and a lot of vitamin C. It's missing vital nutrition. Growing enough brocolli to make up for the missing calories is quite environmentally taxing, and consuming enough brocolli to make up for the steak would be sickening.
- qqqwerty 5y agoHere is a generous interpretation of my comment: Sustainability advocates are pushing to replace high emissions foods (like meat and non-local produce) and unhealthy foods (like soda and chips) with locally grown produce. You linked to a study that critiques USDA guidelines, which has nothing to do with the changes that sustainability advocates are pushing for. And now you are picking apart a short internet comment analogy to try to make the case that beef consumption is a good thing. The fact is, beef is one of the highest emissions foods per calorie that a person can eat. Until you directly address that argument, you should stop "encouraging more meat consumption" (from your top comment).