3 ms·
Definitely a fair point. http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Animal-products http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Animal-products shows 10.19 litre
by wes-k 12y ago
Definitely a fair point.
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Animal-products http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Animal-products
shows 10.19 litres/calorie beef vs 1.34 liters/calorie vegetables. Which is an even greater distance than the gallons per pound I mentioned. This obvioulsy can't be right. I will argue that theory wise it makes sense that a plant based diet would use less than a diet consisting of eating animals that ate the plant based diet. The animals are expending energy! You could argue that we can feed animals lower water usage plants than we can feed humans, but does that really make a healthy animal for human consumption?
That said, there are other negatives associated with beef production and consumption :).
Also - not all calories are created equal.
- malkia 12y agoAs a meat-loving animal, this made me feeling a bit worse... What if meat is imported from areas/states/countries where there is no water problem. And with that, maybe California should open itself to import vegetables/fruits from other states, countries too?
- dragonwriter 12y ago> What if meat is imported from areas/states/countries where there is no water problem. It often is. > And with that, maybe California should open itself to import vegetables/fruits from other states, countries too? California imports fruits and vegetables from other states and countries already.