Vegan diet has 30% of the environmental impact of high-meat diet, major study

https://theconversation.com/vegan-diet-has-just-30-of-the-environmental-impact-of-a-high-meat-diet-major-study-finds-210152

by myshpa • 3 years ago

70 129 3 years ago

theconversation.com

farhanhubble2• 3 years ago

Just as electric cars have no environmental impact related to emissions until you think about the faraway coal fired power plant that produced the energy to charge the vehicles and the energy that got lost along the way during transmission.

_joel• 3 years ago

Currently 33% of my power is coming from renewables, another 15% from nuclear. There's 0% coming in from coal.

reducesuffering2• 3 years ago

OP’s domicile, Western Australia, is like 8% coal themselves. It would probably be a better use of their time attempting to get that number down rather than spreading FUD.

farhanhubble2• 3 years ago

Well I used coal as an example of a source of energy that adversely affects the environment in well understood terms. The point was that looking at numbers in isolation paints a picture much rosier than it actually is.

marmakoide• 3 years ago

It depends, maybe ? I live in a country where energy come from 69% nuclear power, and about 10% hydro, 10% solar/wind, 10% gas. The nuclear plants are evenly spread over the populated area.

Grimblewald3• 3 years ago

an EV has a near future potential for being fueled by green energy, especially since during peak power production for types such as solar, most of us are at work with cars potentially plugged in and ready to make use of that abundance.

a fossil fuel ICE on the other hand is decades if not centuries away from workable green alternatives.

afsgknoinionio3• 3 years ago

It would be really useful if there were some way to take that into account. If an electric car is charged with a typical mix of electricity sources, how much gasoline would you have to burn to put out the same amount of CO2?

Perhaps the EPA should put out some sort of miles per gallon gasoline equivalent, or MPGe for short.

causality0• 3 years ago

That's more than I expected. Isn't the general rule that ten percent or less energy is conserved when moving from plant to animal?

reducesuffering2• 3 years ago

Transportation and packaging overhead is fixed, maybe more due to less caloric density.

23B14• 3 years ago

I think this is pretty obvious when you look at the simple caloric in/out of creating veg vs. meat.

What isn't obvious *but should be* is that this isn't the way to save the environment; I'm all for encouraging behavior shifts, don't get me wrong – but food is as much a part of human culture as language or family is. You can't change that – and those who have tried are typically villains.

myshpa38• 3 years ago

What isn't obvious but should be is that this isn't the way to save the environment

It is very probable that this is the most important thing we could do. There are possibly hundreds of studies proving that. Ask, and I shall provide. Animal agriculture is the leading driver of environmental destruction, eutrophication, deforestation, and biodiversity loss.

As for villains...hmm... every year, over 92 billion land animals are killed, up to 3 trillion marine animals, 1 million species are facing extinction. Meat and dairy are not even a necessity, not in this day and age, not for the majority of people consuming most of it.

And vegans and scientists are the villains? ;)

23B14• 3 years ago

1. Plenty of animals get killed in the creation of vegan diets so that isn't an argument you want to make.

2. I think maybe you missed the point I'm making about dealing with reality as it comes. Food is as inexorably connected to human identity as religion; no top-down law, rule, or diktat will ever work – and anybody who tries it will be overthrown.

brailsafe5• 3 years ago

I'd have guessed parking lots and sprawl are more destructive in total and on an ongoing basis than farming. Agricultural land may be more vast, but doesn't necessarily destroy all habitat that'd otherwise be there.

jahewson3• 3 years ago

Those statistics alone demonstrate that people do not vilify such actions.

polski-g• 3 years ago

If democratic governments forced people to be vegans, they would be voted out of office and replaced with pro beef politicians.

jhanschoo• 3 years ago

The culture of food actually changes very rapidly; fast food and espresso cafes has found much expansion overseas, and fundamentally changed diets, driving up obesity and other major health issues. Considering the slop that fast food kitchens serve, I'd say that if marketed right and with the right flavors and price point vegan slop can replace fast food.

The wild fish we eat in various dishes has changed rapidly as the ecology has changed due to fishing. Many people change their diets according to seasonal availability.

JimtheCoder• 3 years ago

"The culture of food actually changes very rapidly; fast food and espresso cafes has found much expansion overseas, and fundamentally changed diets, driving up obesity and other major health issues."

Yea, because people like those things (fast food and espresso).

Getting people to do less of something they really like? (Eat meat) Not likely, no matter how great your vegan slop tastes.

TexanFeller4• 3 years ago

It may not matter. I'd sooner give up heat, air conditioning, or having children than beef, and that's barely hyperbole. Pretty sure there's a large minority that feels similarly passionate about brisket and sausage.

bobboies2• 3 years ago

Have you ever worked in a factory farm?

Put another way, have you ever gotten your water tested? Did it come up with lead in it? If it did have lead in it, what would you do?

TexanFeller4• 3 years ago

I've worked on traditional cattle ranches with open pasture grazing and am roughly aware of what goes on in the factory farms, feed lots, and dairies that were nearby us. Even traditional ranching has certain brutal aspects to it - dehorning and castration are quite painful even with some effort to minimize pain. But the cows suffer less and for a much shorter time than they would at the hands of a natural predator or their other natural ends such as starvation or exposure. I'm not sure what lead has to do with anything.

batiudrami3• 3 years ago

You don’t necessarily need to give it up, just eat less. It’s much cheaper, too!

Cooking nice vegetarian food is more time consuming and you do need to learn new techniques but they are just as delicious and fulfilling.

I will say there is a certain visceral feeling with eating meat off a bone which I do occasionally miss (I have been vegetarian, except when I travel, for 8 years).

TexanFeller4• 3 years ago

Vegetarian food can be astoundingly good for sure. I do have veg meals a few times a week, especially after finding an amazing Indian place nearby. Beyond meat cravings, I can't replace many meals with veg because no matter how much I eat I'm hungry again in half the time without meat in the mix. As you say veg can be cheaper to cook, but besides my local Indian place good veg food seems to only be available at overpriced restaurants.

dzhiurgis2• 3 years ago

It’s much cheaper, too!

IDK a single telegraph cucumber here is $4-6, tomatoes anywhere from $8-16.

1kg of chicken is $12 and you get order of magnitude more calories.

Admittedly NZ had bad flooding recently hence the insane vegetable prices and you can find some cheap stuff, but it's hard. I've gone days without eating a single vegetable and feel my health going down the drain, but what can you do?

reportgunner• 3 years ago

You don’t necessarily need to give it up, just eat less. It’s much cheaper, too!

This is honestly what turns me off about not eating meat the most. Dude literally said he would freeze in winter and sweat in the summer and give up his firstborn and you're like "it's cheaper yay !".

It feels like a telemarketer on my phone trying to sell me something after I told them a resounding no.

roflyear5• 3 years ago

That sounds like a pretty wild statement.

dzhiurgis2• 3 years ago

because you eat every day, but pay bills end of month

if you had to make choice every day I'm sure you'd prefer vegetarian + aircon/heating

DarkNova62• 3 years ago

judging the headline: comparing two extremes of the spectrum is hardly useful for the average person. Or surprising.

Edit: after reading the article I know exactly as much as before. there are some superficial talking point without any hint of how this study was conducted or which nuances have been considered. There is nothing of substance and smells like a pure opinion piece.

myshpa38• 3 years ago

Read the study then.

DarkNova62• 3 years ago

I would have been inclined if the article even alluded a hint of thorough research. My time is too precious for that.

Sell me a good paper and I will study it. I’m not gonna read anything just so I can say my first impression was right all alone.

And for god’s sake don’t bury the link to the paper. Did they even post it? It should be way easier to get to the source too. Not a good sign either

thomasfromcdnjs• 3 years ago

I love when vegan studies always say that cows use X amount of water but their calculations never factor in that it rains.

---

I'd prefer when seeing these articles that the author talks about which land mass or eco system they are talking about.

Australia has hundreds of thousands of acres of land where the animals roam in self sustainable set ups.

Ripping up these ecosystems to grow nuts and beans would be "worse" for the environment.

Grimblewald3• 3 years ago

also that methane from cow farts gets counted but if me pounding beans to produce protein at a fraction of a cows efficiency while farting up a storm is somehow carbon neutral?

etrautmann2• 3 years ago

I would bet (and hope for your sake) that your farts are much less voluminous than most cows.

etrautmann2• 3 years ago

Running the numbers on this, it seems as though one cow produces as much methane as 7000 of you (500L per day vs .07 L methane if random internet sources are to be trusted)

netsharc• 3 years ago

HN user tries to be an expert in animal biology...

chiefalchemist2• 3 years ago

Perhaps. But keep in mind, the water that runs off a farm is reusable, so to speak. On the other hand, run off from cows or pigs is all but toxic until it's treated.

Australia is an outliner. Factory farming in The West is an entirely different - and much uglier - story.

Ekaros• 3 years ago

No one is removing cow dungs from pastures... At that level it is not that big of an deal...

And they even spread the pig manure all over fields here. The smell tells everything.

myshpa38• 3 years ago

Ripping up these ecosystems to grow nuts and beans would be "worse" for the environment.

No, you could reforest/rewild those lands and stop droughts and and biodiversity loss and repair microclima and soil health etc. etc.

And by growing nuts it would be worse for the environment? Growing nut trees is co2 positive. How could forests with nut trees be worse than pastures with dried out grass?

If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares (and free up an area as big as Africa for rewilding / reforesting)

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

23B14• 3 years ago

"If the world adopted an [x] diet" is blue-sky thinking my friend. Human behavior – on such an intimate and culturally-important thing – is practically immutable – and probably should be.

The higher-order requirements of 'Four Pest' policies are incompatible with human rights. There's ways to attain equilibrium with the planet without using thumb screws.

midoridensha3• 3 years ago

And by growing nuts it would be worse for the environment? Growing nut trees is co2 positive. How could forests with nut trees be worse than pastures with dried out grass?

Because the nut trees would need massive amounts of irrigation.

If you have a place with pastures of dried-out grass, what makes you think there's enough rainfall there to sustain a forest of nut trees?

ipaddr5• 3 years ago

Your chart shows if we adopted a fish base diet it would do more good than a plant based diet that included tomatoes.

It also shows only two types of meat (lamb and beer herds) with the largest land use but ignores chicken and others.

mariusor2• 3 years ago

"reforest", "rewild"? Are you sure that these would apply to this specific part of Australia? A very important part of agriculture is suitability of crops in the environment. Australia is not known for its very hospitable agricultural environment. I would at least ask myself if the effort of planting and growing things there at scale could be higher than the benefits.

nec4b• 3 years ago

Do you have hands on experience in terraforming Australian semi arid outback into forests?

jahewson3• 3 years ago

That’s pretty great, being able to use natural pasture is a wonderful thing and Australia is very lucky in that regard. In the US (the country that consumes more beef than any other) only 1% of beef is produced in this manner. Much of the water usage is feed and much of the the feed is grown on irrigated land.

nerdjon2• 3 years ago

Possible Dupe? Just searching "vegan" I see this 4 times in the last few days.

I am really curious what exactly "high meat" means. I am very curious since the difference between "low meat" and vegetarian is minimal at best and even between low and vegan is still not that drastic.

I would also really like to see how the dietary enviromental impact relates to a persons entire environmental impact (as in, ok we see a 30% impact change based on dietary impact but how much of a change is that on a personal level really?)

There are just a lot of information missing here that would paint much better (or not better depending on what you are trying to argue) picture.

I am also curious how this changes based on where you live and how far your food has to travel to get to you within the same country. Like rural vs urban in the US.

myshpa38• 3 years ago

what exactly "high meat" means

From the study: high meat-eaters (≥100 g total meat consumed per day)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w

I am also curious how this changes based on where you live and how far your food has to travel to get to you within the same country. Like rural vs urban in the US.

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

You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local

... 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%.

Many of the foods ... are ... transported by boat – avocados and almonds are prime examples. Shipping one kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the United Kingdom would generate 0.21kg CO2eq in transport emissions. This is only around 8% of avocados’ total footprint. Even when shipped at great distances, its emissions are much less than locally-produced animal products.

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%.

jahewson3• 3 years ago

Many of the foods ... are ... transported by boat – avocados and almonds are prime examples.

Transatlantic fresh produce is generally air freight.

nerdjon2• 3 years ago

So maybe the study answers it but that is a lot to read through for one answer, but my big question that you did not quote is still.

I would also really like to see how the dietary enviromental impact relates to a persons entire environmental impact (as in, ok we see a 30% impact change based on dietary impact but how much of a change is that on a personal level really?)

That is information I am struggling to actually find. 30% of one of impacts is a decent amount but I also don't own a car. How much of my entire environmental impact is my diet?

They also seem to be grouping all meat together. Like Beef and Chicken. According to https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food there is a massive difference between the impact of Chicken vs Beef. I searched that report for chicken (never came up) and Poultry (came up twice). So I am very curious how they are actually coming to these numbers when all of the types of meet vary wildly in their impact.

rascul• 3 years ago

> what exactly "high meat" means
From the study: high meat-eaters (≥100 g total meat consumed per day)

For reference, that's about one quarter pounder from McDonald's.

weirdkid• 3 years ago

But with 600% more smug.

This doesn’t even really need reporting when every rando-vegan out there is running up to people they don’t know to announce shit like this.

Downvote me, but you know it’s true.

roflyear5• 3 years ago

In this thread, the only people who seem smug are those saying "i'll never give up meat!!!!"

ipaddr5• 3 years ago

The data shows fish have less of an impact over tomatoes. Meat is more than beef or lamb

000ooo0003• 3 years ago

Downvoting you because this contributes nothing of value to the conversation. Leave this crap on reddit.

afsgknoinionio3• 3 years ago

A whole lot more people don't eat meat than you realize. Some of us don't go around advertising that fact because we're tired of being ridiculed, but we still show up in surveys. I don't think some 5-10% of people on the street are "running up to people they don't know to announce shit like this".

glimshe• 3 years ago

This isn't where we fix the problem. All love and respect for Vegans, but there is no chance we can save environment by making everybody else miserable like this. Most people would hate a Vegan diet, to the point of simply not complying and preferring Global Warming/Climate Change.

Also, there is little point in adopting a Vegan diet while ignoring the much bigger opportunity of Nuclear Energy.

analognoise• 3 years ago

I love how some people think we wouldn't rather have war to thin out numbers than to all agree to eat vegan.

Like obviously people would choose war.

It's the same with "climate refugees": if we get to that stage there won't be razor wire and a fully deployed military who will shoot on sight. Same with "let's all get rid of our cars": the public would complain but we'd easily engage in all our warfare to maintain a standard of living. Its cool if individuals want to opt out, but most won't.

ecf• 3 years ago

I will never inconvenience myself in the name of fighting climate change. Anti-nuclear diehards can assume that responsibility if they want to keep hamstringing the only thing that is going to make a real difference.

megaman821• 3 years ago

We have too many cows, but the answer isn't going vegan. Five hundred years ago the ecosystem supported 30-60 million bison in the U.S. Today we have over 90 million cows. Eating less meat and grazing less cows would restore balance to the ecosystem.

paulus_magnus2• 3 years ago

average Human uses 2000 kcal of food per day (~10MJ) which is 2,32 kWh, that's what an EV uses to drive 10km (6mi). Using a Diesel car that much energy will drive you 1km (0.8mi).

I think we're not looking in the right direction if we want to reduce environmental impact of humanity.

Vegan diet has 30% of the environmental impact of high-meat diet, major study

Related Stories