this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
684 points (78.1% liked)

World News

39096 readers
2813 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] krayj@lemmy.world 136 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

This crucially important caveat they snuck in there:

"Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment."

...which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity vs the type of plant-based diet people had.

Takeaway from the article shouldn't be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right and that it's also possible for vegan diets to be more environmentally irresponsible.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 90 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s both absolutely true and a massive distraction from the point. An environmentally friendly diet that includes meat is going to involve sustainable hunting not factory farming. In comparison an environmentally friendly vegan diet is staples of meat replacements and not trying to get fancy with it. It’s shit like beans instead of meat, tofu and tempeh when you feel fancy. It means rejecting substitutes that are too environmentally costly such as agave nectar as a sweetener (you should probably use beet or cane based sweetener instead).

So in short eat vegan like a poor vegan not like a rich person who thinks veganism is trendy

[–] Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

"So in short eat vegan like a poor vegan not like a rich person who thinks veganism is trendy"

But in the context of this conversation, wouldn't eating like a poor vegan rely heavily on buying products that also have a heavy impact on the environment?

You would have to buy cheaper products which come from mass produced farms that use TONS and TONS of water! And generate TONS and TONS of carbon emissions during production of those products.

To be vegan AND ~~advocate for conservation~~(you can advocate for something no matter your own behavior. That's the wrong word to use) to claim that your lifestyle is better for the environment than your non-vegan counterparts, you have to have money.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I ain’t never heard of a gram of black beans with more co2 emissions than a gram of beef

[–] thehatfox@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, I think it’s vital to avoid thinking in absolutes over carbon footprints if we are to make real progress. We can argue endlessly over the “necessity” of consuming meat, but that becomes a distraction. Many things are not “necessary”, but most people are not realistically going to live in caves wearing carbon neutral hair shirts.

We need to continue increasing transparency on the impact of different animal products, so consumers can make informed choices. While also accepting they may not always be perfect.

[–] Singar@citizensgaming.com 5 points 1 year ago

The only way to stop people from eating meat is to make a vegan food that tastes better than a bacon cheeseburger.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

[…]

Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

yes. when you look at charts and such. Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan. Sheep did not show up so well either so im guessing ruminants in general are not going to be so hot. Anyway I would encourage folk to keep it in mind and do what they can. I realize go vegan results in many. Well eff it all then but man just avoiding beef is big impact.

[–] FermatsLastAccount@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan.

But that first person could have an even bigger environmental impact by becoming Vegan instead of only eating chicken.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

yes but if you actually convince someone who eats just chicken to go vegan it will have less of an effect if you actually convince a big red meat eater to limit to chicken.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You'd have a bigger impact by convincing 30% of the population to only have chicken, vs convincing 15% to go vegan.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Sure, and if we could only do one, we should choose accordingly. We can do both, simultanously. Exactly like how we don't have to choose between eating less meat and driving less cars.

[–] too_much_too_soon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or an even bigger impact by having fewer children.

[–] CantSt0pPoppin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is true, however, not realistic in some parts of the world. For instance, in the United States, Republicans have waged a war on bodily autonomy, which includes the Roe v. Wade ruling and states creating departments to hunt down citizens who go out of state to have abortions. There are also countries where sex education is not prohibited. So, take these things into consideration while thinking about potential solutions. That being said, you are right, and you can do something about it by voting, if you are able to, wherever you live.

[–] Nepenthe@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Do you remember a source for that info? Or at least suggestions? I'm interested to read into it, but I'm not really sure what to even google for that

[–] jennwiththesea@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Nepenthe@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This and the article seem like a great breakdown, thank you very much. I would have guessed chocolate would be somewhere in the middle, and I've never really thought about cheese in this context at all. I was surprised to see both of them so high up there.

This would suggest my sweet tooth is my biggest problem, at least, since beef is too expensive to be a common occurrence anyway

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

So nice to read a sensible comment in a sea of crazy talk.

[–] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The real takeaway should be that the Independent is complete garbage

[–] Hank@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah I barely eat beef anymore, mostly chicken. I don't want to give up on eating animals, especially since I'm trying to get into shape right now and it would be hard to eat healthy and get enough protein to build up muscle mass.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do whatever you want but just so you know Arnold Schwarzenegger is a vegetarian now. It’s much less difficult than people think to get enough protein to bulk up without meat unless you’re doing hardcore body building. Beans and rice is a high protein dinner. Peanut butter is amazing for bulking.

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] Hank@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I know and if everything goes as planned soon my dietary needs will change that this is a thing I will greatly reconsider. As of now I still have some fat reserves so I try to avoid too many carbs or fat. My theory is that I'm still capable to gain muscles while maintaining a small deficit as I have enough reserves to feed my muscles before my body decides it'd rather burn protein for energy. At the end of summer I'll go back to focus on weight loss until I'm forced to bulk because I won't be as much outside for weather and daylight reasons. I'll rethink my relationship with animal products at those points.

[–] krayj@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I keep half a dozen of my own chickens in my backyard...which means about half my daily protein intake comes from eggs (which is a great source, btw). And my chickens free-range in my backyard and largely take care of and feed themselves (supplemented with chicken feed but they get most of their daily intake from the bugs/plants in the yard). I still do eat meat almost daily, but the quantities are a lot less than what I was doing a decade ago, and beef is less than a once-a-week thing for me. Like you, I'm trying to get back in shape and watching macronutrients (like protein) very carefully and trying to hit certain daily minimum numbers.