What surprises me the most is the huge impact of beef, I knew it was bad but not so bad. Even pork is acceptable in comparison. But, no surprise, vegetables are the best.
Thank God beer is so low, I was worried.
Almost like stuff that needs to travel a very long distance has higher carbon footprint
Beer is the answer, a middle ground
If the worst thing that happened to the human race to prevent climate change was no more beef and no more chocolate, it would be a million times better than what is going to happen to us now that we have done nothing to stop it.
Yeah, but i doubt most people eat anywhere as much chocolate as beef
Now do avocado
Wtf is a serving
I’m glad I don’t eat the top 6. I only buy responsibly sourced and fair trade chocolate
Don’t nuts also have a crazy water footprint? Same with beans/pulses.
I mean, CO2 is bad and all, but we have rivers that haven’t reached the ocean, largely because people think it’s a great idea to flood almond fields or grow watermelons in the desert.
Which is why I don’t eat South American beef anymore. No chocolate either, but grass fed, free riding farm beef…
Is it per cow? Per steak? Per 100g per one egg, per one nut?
I can’t see one serving ie a 8lb filliet having that much more impact compared to lamb or fish.
I have given up meat and most dairy. Haven’t flown in years. Minimise my consumption of new tech and fashion as much as possible. But NO ONE is taking my chocolate away.
Who tf deforests land to raise beef??????
Interesting, but this doesn’t really fit this sub
Important to note that Beef is only really bad when done on deforested lands.
The conclusion is that we should source our food more locally. If anyone here didn’t already realize that transport causes loads of emissions then I don’ think there’s any hope of mitigating climate change.
Interesting. Lets hope there is no insane tax hidden in the EU green deal because I cannot live without a Chimichurri steak once a week at least. And if yes than the only thing I am switching, the continent where I live.
Hmm cheese seems low considering that some (hard) cheeses use up 10 liters of milk per kg of cheese. Although the graph is kinda hard to read on mobile, so maybe the lowest milk is about 10 times lower than the worst cheese.
Also I saw hard cheese being worse than chicken in another one of these.
Edit: guess it depends on the ‘per serving’ metric.
I would like to see how Cotton would fit in this. Yes, not a food but what I understand, it’s really taxing for environment.
It is strange that farmed fish is higher than pork or chicken. Theorically fish is cold-blooded animals which means they do not use energy from food to make a heat. So bigger part of their food are converted to biomass in comparison with warm-blooded animals which uses their energy from food to make a heat.
Probably the higher carbon print comes from storage and logictics, because fish need more cooling, faster delivery to keep it fresh.
Not a biologist here, got a couple questions:
* If we take two animals grown in a respectful way (living in fields near by, eating only grass/hay/local stuff). Where does the difference came from? Why does a beef pollute 3 times more than a lamb and 9 time more than a pig?
* What about the protein produced? (and the vitamins, etc) If your food pollute less but doesn’t feed you enough, you’ll need more.
Quick google search about the proteins in all those aliments:
Page 8/67 where the whole of Australia is for him a rangeland, as is the Tibetan plateau in China and a few other places, and on page 43 he than uses this absurdity to say that 83% of land usage is by farm animals.
The guy is disingenuous to the extreme. I bet I could find a lot of more such data manipulations if I gave his “paper” a serious reading.
This should be standardised by weight, not “by serving”
It is the uncomfortable fact that no government wants to address. Meat is responsible for a lot of emissions. But no government in the world will even try and touch meat by for instance; raising taxes, cutting subsidies, raising farm animal standards of living, or anything like that. The best that some governments have done is invest in plant based proteins, but even that is already controversial.
Personally, I would love it if my government decided to massively expand the living standards for animals raised for meat production, even if it would lead to meat becoming expensive. Meat used to be a luxury, and I would be fine making it a luxury again. Though I realise I am in the minority here and this would probably be massively unpopular.
Lets all kill ourselfs and solve the problem.
“Eat the bugs, bigot”
I’m a happy, vegan, enviro-freak… but the chocolate. The chocolate hurts a little.
32 comments
And the sky is blue and my dick too big, nothing new on this study
It’s also worth considering that that is assuming you are in the west. Europe or the States
Source: https://www.considerate-consumer.com/carbon-footprint
What surprises me the most is the huge impact of beef, I knew it was bad but not so bad. Even pork is acceptable in comparison. But, no surprise, vegetables are the best.
Thank God beer is so low, I was worried.
Almost like stuff that needs to travel a very long distance has higher carbon footprint
Beer is the answer, a middle ground
If the worst thing that happened to the human race to prevent climate change was no more beef and no more chocolate, it would be a million times better than what is going to happen to us now that we have done nothing to stop it.
Yeah, but i doubt most people eat anywhere as much chocolate as beef
Now do avocado
Wtf is a serving
I’m glad I don’t eat the top 6. I only buy responsibly sourced and fair trade chocolate
Don’t nuts also have a crazy water footprint? Same with beans/pulses.
I mean, CO2 is bad and all, but we have rivers that haven’t reached the ocean, largely because people think it’s a great idea to flood almond fields or grow watermelons in the desert.
Which is why I don’t eat South American beef anymore. No chocolate either, but grass fed, free riding farm beef…
Is it per cow? Per steak? Per 100g per one egg, per one nut?
I can’t see one serving ie a 8lb filliet having that much more impact compared to lamb or fish.
I have given up meat and most dairy. Haven’t flown in years. Minimise my consumption of new tech and fashion as much as possible. But NO ONE is taking my chocolate away.
Who tf deforests land to raise beef??????
Interesting, but this doesn’t really fit this sub
Important to note that Beef is only really bad when done on deforested lands.
The conclusion is that we should source our food more locally. If anyone here didn’t already realize that transport causes loads of emissions then I don’ think there’s any hope of mitigating climate change.
Interesting. Lets hope there is no insane tax hidden in the EU green deal because I cannot live without a Chimichurri steak once a week at least. And if yes than the only thing I am switching, the continent where I live.
Hmm cheese seems low considering that some (hard) cheeses use up 10 liters of milk per kg of cheese. Although the graph is kinda hard to read on mobile, so maybe the lowest milk is about 10 times lower than the worst cheese.
Also I saw hard cheese being worse than chicken in another one of these.
Edit: guess it depends on the ‘per serving’ metric.
I would like to see how Cotton would fit in this. Yes, not a food but what I understand, it’s really taxing for environment.
It is strange that farmed fish is higher than pork or chicken. Theorically fish is cold-blooded animals which means they do not use energy from food to make a heat. So bigger part of their food are converted to biomass in comparison with warm-blooded animals which uses their energy from food to make a heat.
Probably the higher carbon print comes from storage and logictics, because fish need more cooling, faster delivery to keep it fresh.
Not a biologist here, got a couple questions:
* If we take two animals grown in a respectful way (living in fields near by, eating only grass/hay/local stuff). Where does the difference came from? Why does a beef pollute 3 times more than a lamb and 9 time more than a pig?
* What about the protein produced? (and the vitamins, etc) If your food pollute less but doesn’t feed you enough, you’ll need more.
Quick google search about the proteins in all those aliments:
1kg of pork = 270g of proteins
chicken = 270g
beef = 260g
lamb = 250g
cheese = 250g
prawn = 240g
fish = 220g
been = 210g
nuts = 200g
egg = 130g
tofu = 80g
chocolate = 49g
dairy milk = 34g
beer = 5g
vegan propaganda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVG2OQp6jEQ
This should be a required viewing for people. It is so easily to mislead people by presenting “facts”.
As is the case with our author here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g1qezti8mqfh4mc/180228 CCLS Presentation.pdf?dl=0
Page 8/67 where the whole of Australia is for him a rangeland, as is the Tibetan plateau in China and a few other places, and on page 43 he than uses this absurdity to say that 83% of land usage is by farm animals.
The guy is disingenuous to the extreme. I bet I could find a lot of more such data manipulations if I gave his “paper” a serious reading.
This should be standardised by weight, not “by serving”
It is the uncomfortable fact that no government wants to address. Meat is responsible for a lot of emissions. But no government in the world will even try and touch meat by for instance; raising taxes, cutting subsidies, raising farm animal standards of living, or anything like that. The best that some governments have done is invest in plant based proteins, but even that is already controversial.
Personally, I would love it if my government decided to massively expand the living standards for animals raised for meat production, even if it would lead to meat becoming expensive. Meat used to be a luxury, and I would be fine making it a luxury again. Though I realise I am in the minority here and this would probably be massively unpopular.
Lets all kill ourselfs and solve the problem.
“Eat the bugs, bigot”
I’m a happy, vegan, enviro-freak… but the chocolate. The chocolate hurts a little.