Green - An environmentalist community

5328 readers

1 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

theloneforager@lemmy.ml

Chloe@lemmy.ml

Less meat is nearly always better than sustainable meat, to reduce your carbon footprint (ourworldindata.org)

submitted 1 year ago by Rokil@sh.itjust.works to c/green@lemmy.ml

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From https://sh.itjust.works/post/1278677

plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RedCanasta@lemmy.fmhy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger

That's not right. This studyabout biking vs driving with different diets. inflates the carbon output for bikers by subtracting the calories for car drivers, but not for bicyclists.

It assumes too much and is so generalized nothing can really be gleaned from the findings.

Walking and biking are more environmentally sound than driving

Not everyone drives a "fuel-efficient" car (25 mpg according to the article), in fact the most popular car being sold are Ford F150s with mpg around 15-20. And even mpg is not a constant if you consider traffic or inclination.

I 100% agree that the wealthy are killing us much much faster.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

These type of things always crack me up because we all know that just living most of us are using 2k calories or so and if you ever used one of these excersise bikes that tracks calories burned it takes tons to do like 100 calories.

[–] Michaelmitchell@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Also it assumes the increase in consumption from needing more calories will be uniform when my guess is it's not. Most people would have two servings of meat a day as a base augmented by a bunch of starches, sugars and fats to cover most of the calories, and any increases would probably be snacks of those starches and sugars that are way less co2 per calorie. If your diet is a stereotypical cheeseburger and fries, and your still hungry, your probably not gonna order another 1/4 cheeseburger and 1/4 fries, you'll probably just get another order of fries.