I don't understand the new push for plant based diets..
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I understand people who want to eat only plant based food because they don't like the taste of meat, they are animal rights activists, or its their religion. I don't get the position though that its about climate change,
Many of the foods on a plant based diet are very bad for the environment. Nut trees require a huge amount of water and are grown in areas experiencing drought. People need to consume more volume to get the protein and calories from plants and clearing fields for plant production hurts the environment. Many of the plants get shipped from far away so there is the fuel cost. I could see taking an eat local approach for climate change, avoiding single use packaging, buying in bulk or paper packages but I get the feeling the plant based angle is not really environmental. |
Anonymous
| Yawn. I don’t like animals being murdered. |
Anonymous
|
I think you need to better inform yourself on this. The biggest environmental impact is the combination of growing food for cows to eat and then the methane those animals release. The travel and packaging impact is relatively minor compared to that.
This is a helpful diagram: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/01/Environmental-impact-of-foods-by-life-cycle-stage.png |
Anonymous
Anonymous
| Nut trees are a net gain for the environment because they require trees to be planted, which is generally positive. Eating local is great, but transport costs are not the only ones |
Anonymous
| Meat is higher up the food chain and therefore requires WAY more resources than items lower on the food chain to grow. I think I read that it requires 36 gallons of water to grow 1 lb of beef, and like 5 gallons to grow a pound of beans. That's the resource/environment argument. Definitely ignore it, I think most people do, but it is a logical position. |
Anonymous
| Cow farts are apparently bad for the environment. I can see why they'd be unpleasant but don't really understand why they're an actual problem. |
Anonymous
Whoa not even close. Nut trees are actually very bad for the environment. Almonds and pistachios require a crazy amount of water. To create nut groves, large trees that are more drought tolerant and help retain ground water are cleared. Eating a local free range chicken is better for the environment than many plant based foods. |
Anonymous
| It would be useful if food products had a carbon footprint rating or stamp on them. |
Anonymous
That shows CO2 emissions, not resource usage, which is another factor. Nut trees take a huge amount of freshwater and are often grown in places where it's in short supply (California almonds) |
Anonymous
Should the rating include the carbon footprint to produce the stamp itself? |
Anonymous
|
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-environment/
huge outlays of pesticides, fertilizer, fuel, feed and water while releasing greenhouse gases, manure and a range of toxic chemicals into our air and water. A lifecycle analysis conducted by EWG that took into account the production and distribution of 20 common agricultural products found that red meat such as beef and lamb is responsible for 10 to 40 times as many greenhouse gas emissions as common vegetables and grains. |
Anonymous
https://www.thoughtco.com/methane-as-a-greenhouse-gas-4122208 Cows fart methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 |
Anonymous
I get it that cows are the worst of all meats. But how about fish and chicken? |
Anonymous
|
The story about Almonds (each nut is different)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/foodrevolution.org/blog/almonds-sustainability/amp/ |