40
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] eleitl@lemmy.zip 3 points 16 hours ago

No matter how you see it, only dead people are climate neutral.

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 3 points 12 hours ago

It's a false equivalency to claim there's nothing we can do here. Emissions are significantly less large for eating plants directly compared to raising farm animals

Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits

[...]

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/html least

[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 points 12 hours ago

Decomposition gives off greenhouse gasses like methane, so even they aren't neutral.

[-] eleitl@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 hours ago

So do trees.

[-] deadbeef79000 4 points 1 day ago

This is somewhat disengeneous.

It's only measuring carbon. Of course a factory will be more efficient per unit of output.

The total environmental footprint is more important as is which markets that output serves.

Here in NZ, with a population of 5m we export enough dairy and meat to feed 40m. So we could avoid all the local environmental impacts and those of transporting that output to the world and still feed the entire population with only ~10% of the industry output.

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

Transportation is a tiny portion of any agricultural emissions, it's really producing it in the first place that matters. If global consumption levels don't reduce, then this is just an accounting shell game with emissions happening elsewhere

Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.

Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions.

This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%.

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local


New Zealand needs larger reduction in cattle sizes than just a 10x in many areas for other environmental impacts. For instance, the dairy production in Canterbury is so high that there needs to be a 12x reduction in size to keep water at safe drinking levels because of its nitrate pollution

The large footprint for milk in Canterbury indicates just how far the capacity of the environment has been overshot. To maintain that level of production and have healthy water would require either 12 times more rainfall in the region or a 12-fold reduction in cows.

https://theconversation.com/11-000-litres-of-water-to-make-one-litre-of-milk-new-questions-about-the-freshwater-impact-of-nz-dairy-farming-183806

[-] deadbeef79000 1 points 1 day ago

I suspect that the transport costs for NZ exports are much higher than the global or EU average because we are really far away from everyone else, also we don't get the bigger more efficient ships.

Also, Canterbury and Waikato share more of the cattle burden than the rest of the country so they'd need a much bigger drop to compensate.

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

Shipping is generally a lot more efficient per kg than you would think. For instance the article looked at 9000 km boat transportation for beef

Transporting food by boat emits 23 grams of CO2eq per tonne of product per kilometer. Transporting the 9000 kilometers from Central America to the UK, therefore, emits 0.207 kilograms CO2eq [9000km * 23g per tonne-kilometer / 1000 / 1000 = 0.207 kg CO2eq per kg]. This is equivalent to 0.35% of the total footprint of 60 kilograms of CO2eq per kilogram of beef.

We could change that to be New Zealand to Iceland (on the complete top of the globe and far away laterally too), but we'd still find it's a small portion of emissions. We'd bump up our distance to 15900 km or so meaning ~1.76x more distance than what they did the math on, putting it at ~0.6-0.7% of total beef emissions. Still not a significant driver compare to eating beef in the first place

[-] deadbeef79000 1 points 1 day ago

Cool, nice to have figures!

[-] username_1@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago

Of course a factory is more effective than a bunch of punks with hammers.

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2026
40 points (93.5% liked)

Environment

5415 readers
51 users here now

Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).

See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS