4 ms·
> It’s correlated at best. The health benefits are mixed, carbon footprint atrocious and costs high. Carbon footprint only seems large if carbon sequestration
by DarkNova6 3y ago
> It’s correlated at best. The health benefits are mixed, carbon footprint atrocious and costs high.
Carbon footprint only seems large if carbon sequestration is not taken into account. The source of feed is the primary factor here: Is it created locally and sustainably, or do you need large cargo shipments of Amazon soy which burnt down parts of the rainforest?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Is it created locally and sustainably Ocean shipping is cheap in carbon. Local means lots of redundant last-mile delivery. (You still need the other transport infrastructure.) The carbon impact of local/organic is largely in its excess transportion. I eat a lot of local produce. But I don’t kid myself—it’s for the taste and nutrition, and comes at the expense of the planet. That it’s expensive limits that environmental impact.
- tekla 3y agoPeople burn down rain forests and forests because their farming techniques generate piss poor yields versus modern techniques forcing the use of larger plots of land to generate enough product. Modern farming techniques would cause much less loss of rainforest.
- galleywest200 3y agoYou are speaking of animal farming. I believe ranching is a huge portion of the deforestation.