Food to slow a warming planet
October 19, 2018 12:22 PM Subscribe
Is it better for your carbon footprint to go fully vegetarian but keep eating dairy, or to keep eating meat but drop beef and dairy?
Say you're interested in changing your diet in order to reduce your personal carbon footprint. And say you're not ready to go fully vegan yet. Which of the following scenarios is likely to be better:
1. Stop eating all meat, but continue to consume dairy products.
2. Stop eating any cattle products, including dairy, but continue to eat poultry, pork, and other meats.
(Bonus question: does the answer change based on whether or not you stop eating fish in scenario #1?)
Say you're interested in changing your diet in order to reduce your personal carbon footprint. And say you're not ready to go fully vegan yet. Which of the following scenarios is likely to be better:
1. Stop eating all meat, but continue to consume dairy products.
2. Stop eating any cattle products, including dairy, but continue to eat poultry, pork, and other meats.
(Bonus question: does the answer change based on whether or not you stop eating fish in scenario #1?)
This recent question has a lot of information about the carbon footprint of dairy.
posted by mbrubeck at 12:32 PM on October 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by mbrubeck at 12:32 PM on October 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
"Pimentel calculates that providing a 3600 kcal diet with 1000 kcal from animal products requires about 35,000 kcal of fossil energy whereas a 3600 kcal vegetarian diet (with more than sufficient levels of protein) takes about 18,000 kcal of fossil energy – almost half that of the non-vegetarian diet. A lacto-ovo vegetarian diet (including milk and eggs) requires around 25,000 kcal of fossil energy." Life Cycle-Based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of
the U.S. Food System pg. 34.
posted by gregr at 12:35 PM on October 19, 2018 [8 favorites]
the U.S. Food System pg. 34.
posted by gregr at 12:35 PM on October 19, 2018 [8 favorites]
Not workable in all locations but vegetarian plus game meat or sustainable wild-caught fish can have a smaller carbon footprint than vegetarian with plant protein alone.
posted by Rust Moranis at 12:47 PM on October 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by Rust Moranis at 12:47 PM on October 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
If you want to support small farms, it may be prudent to support *some* small amount meat/animal-product husbandry and consumption, for financial and soil-enrichment reasons. I got this tip from a Buddhist vegetarian farmer in Western Mass. who had to give up his small operation because he couldn't make it work, although he saw that adding animals could probably put him in the black.
posted by Glomar response at 1:10 PM on October 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by Glomar response at 1:10 PM on October 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
For carbon footprint it’s murkier, but for greenhouse gas output, you’re better off ditching all cow products, because methane is far worse than CO2, in terms of greenhouse impacts.
See here and here for freely accessible scholarly articles, with good figures.
posted by SaltySalticid at 1:14 PM on October 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
See here and here for freely accessible scholarly articles, with good figures.
posted by SaltySalticid at 1:14 PM on October 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
Yeah there's no clearcut answer here because it really depends on how the beef is farmed, and where, for example - or if you're eating predominantly pork and chicken etc.
For example here in Australia beef is almost all grass fed and only gets grain for a few weeks at the feed lot. That's a very different footprint to corn or soy fed beef.
posted by smoke at 2:20 PM on October 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
For example here in Australia beef is almost all grass fed and only gets grain for a few weeks at the feed lot. That's a very different footprint to corn or soy fed beef.
posted by smoke at 2:20 PM on October 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
caveat emptor: if changing your personal habits makes you feel better, or helps you internally, then i'm all for it, and please disregard the rest of this comment. however, if these thoughts take up a lot of your energy, then here's something to think about:
(i'm sorry in advance for being that person, but i think this is a crucial perspective to include in the conversation)
individual contributions of this nature really don't make any difference at all -- not even on a neighborhood scale. what you do or don't personally consume doesn't affect the supply chain. which is to say, that food still goes the whole distance, it just goes the last mile into either a) someone else's mouth, or b) a dumpster.
unfortunately not even citywide changes (e.g. a whole city deciding to ban some kind of food) really make much of a difference.
i'm not writing this to be a doom and gloom kitten. rather, i'm trying to impress that this kind of pursuit is unfortunately trivial, mostly due to the existence of massive omnipresent entities (e.g. corporations) which wield unnatural power with respect to impact on the environment. therefore, if we are looking to make a meaningful impact on the world, we have to look elsewhere.
what does make a difference is supporting small businesses, as well as lobbying for legislation which affects businesses (local or global) and/or federal regulations on commerce. in that sense, an individual can make a large difference.
i urge you (and everyone reading this) to consider saving your energy for that fight. in other words, let's pick our battles.
posted by =d.b= at 2:33 PM on October 19, 2018 [29 favorites]
(i'm sorry in advance for being that person, but i think this is a crucial perspective to include in the conversation)
individual contributions of this nature really don't make any difference at all -- not even on a neighborhood scale. what you do or don't personally consume doesn't affect the supply chain. which is to say, that food still goes the whole distance, it just goes the last mile into either a) someone else's mouth, or b) a dumpster.
unfortunately not even citywide changes (e.g. a whole city deciding to ban some kind of food) really make much of a difference.
i'm not writing this to be a doom and gloom kitten. rather, i'm trying to impress that this kind of pursuit is unfortunately trivial, mostly due to the existence of massive omnipresent entities (e.g. corporations) which wield unnatural power with respect to impact on the environment. therefore, if we are looking to make a meaningful impact on the world, we have to look elsewhere.
what does make a difference is supporting small businesses, as well as lobbying for legislation which affects businesses (local or global) and/or federal regulations on commerce. in that sense, an individual can make a large difference.
i urge you (and everyone reading this) to consider saving your energy for that fight. in other words, let's pick our battles.
posted by =d.b= at 2:33 PM on October 19, 2018 [29 favorites]
This seems simple enough: eat beans not beef
posted by whistle pig at 2:37 PM on October 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by whistle pig at 2:37 PM on October 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
individual contributions of this nature really don't make any difference at all -- not even on a neighborhood scale. what you do or don't personally consume doesn't affect the supply chain.
While we definitely need system change as well, it is not the case that this doesn't matter. As the author of a recent study in Science said, avoiding meat and dairy is likely the single biggest way to reduce your impact on the planet. If people make this change (or even reduce meat/dairy consumption) en masse, that absolutely makes a difference. To answer your question, I would ditch meat first, and of meat, definitely beef should go first.
posted by pinochiette at 3:31 PM on October 19, 2018 [9 favorites]
While we definitely need system change as well, it is not the case that this doesn't matter. As the author of a recent study in Science said, avoiding meat and dairy is likely the single biggest way to reduce your impact on the planet. If people make this change (or even reduce meat/dairy consumption) en masse, that absolutely makes a difference. To answer your question, I would ditch meat first, and of meat, definitely beef should go first.
posted by pinochiette at 3:31 PM on October 19, 2018 [9 favorites]
I think I've read somewhere that dairy from goats is better than dairy from cows but I can't find a good link right now.
Also, to state the obvious, the quantity matters too. E.g., eating dairy a few times per week is likely better than eating meat twice a day. And it seems like the correlations between intake of different types of animal products could be either positive or negative, depending on the individual. E.g., one person that stops consuming pork products might also cut their egg consumption in half because they no longer eat bacon and eggs. But someone else might increase their egg consumption to add some additional protein to their diet after cutting out some types of meat. So I guess this doesn't really answer the question but honestly I think that any reduction is better than none, whether it comes about by eliminating whole categories or by eating less of all animal products across the board.
(There's no conflict or zero sum aspect between reducing one's personal carbon footprint and also working for systemic changes. Adopting a more vegan diet doesn't literally deplete the energy you have to spend on other things (lol))
posted by desert at 4:49 PM on October 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
Also, to state the obvious, the quantity matters too. E.g., eating dairy a few times per week is likely better than eating meat twice a day. And it seems like the correlations between intake of different types of animal products could be either positive or negative, depending on the individual. E.g., one person that stops consuming pork products might also cut their egg consumption in half because they no longer eat bacon and eggs. But someone else might increase their egg consumption to add some additional protein to their diet after cutting out some types of meat. So I guess this doesn't really answer the question but honestly I think that any reduction is better than none, whether it comes about by eliminating whole categories or by eating less of all animal products across the board.
(There's no conflict or zero sum aspect between reducing one's personal carbon footprint and also working for systemic changes. Adopting a more vegan diet doesn't literally deplete the energy you have to spend on other things (lol))
posted by desert at 4:49 PM on October 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
Not a simple answer but it is difficult to farm truly sustainably without animals in the farm system, as animals can graze weeds, prepare fields (watch a pig working a field sometime), remove pests and weeds from systems thru grazing (sheep and chickens and goats - a friend of mine has 40 goats on constant weed patrol), they also concentrate minerals into nice packages ready for reuse, and possess lots of other useful cropping functions.
At the same time the animal numbers required for farm 'support' would be nothing like the numbers where animals are the main product.
Going vegetarian/vegan as an individual can change the system a lot, and fast. That meat-free is increasing rapidly as a diet choice is of MAJOR concern to New Zealand farmers as our export earnings are largely from agriculture. I've been to a conference recently where this was a major topic and the corporates (especially) are very worried and doing everything they can to downplay (and fight) the issue - altho' I feel meat-free will win. I'm not meat-free, altho' eat very little as so expensive in NZ and quality is generally very poor.
posted by unearthed at 1:02 AM on October 20, 2018
At the same time the animal numbers required for farm 'support' would be nothing like the numbers where animals are the main product.
Going vegetarian/vegan as an individual can change the system a lot, and fast. That meat-free is increasing rapidly as a diet choice is of MAJOR concern to New Zealand farmers as our export earnings are largely from agriculture. I've been to a conference recently where this was a major topic and the corporates (especially) are very worried and doing everything they can to downplay (and fight) the issue - altho' I feel meat-free will win. I'm not meat-free, altho' eat very little as so expensive in NZ and quality is generally very poor.
posted by unearthed at 1:02 AM on October 20, 2018
NPR had a good article about how to approach the sustainable seafood guides. I tend to believe that a poorly-implemented pescatarian diet can do more harm than a well-implemented meat diet, though. It's complicated, and not everyone has a reputable fishmonger at their disposal.
(BTW I recommend getting to know Tasty Bite.)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:27 AM on October 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
(BTW I recommend getting to know Tasty Bite.)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:27 AM on October 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
individual contributions of this nature really don't make any difference at all
Except avoiding hypocrisy by living in a manner that's consistent with your publicly stated views about what is and isn't harmful to the planet and shouldering your share of the burden for moral global consumption. That, and everybody's individual contributions add up - which, in case you hadn't noticed, is how we got into this situation in the first place. A big corporation didn't just decide to set up a global climate changing machine.
Substitute "eating meat" for "setting fire to this pile of tyres in my backyard" and see if you have the same view about "individual contributions". Somehow I doubt it'd be "it's just one fire; there are heaps bigger sources of pollution out there; you should save your time lobbying against Big Oil."
what you do or don't personally consume doesn't affect the supply chain.
No, but what a lot of people do or don't personally consume does (again - that's how we got here), and the ethical thing to do is to model the behaviour you expect others to adopt and reduce the amount of harm that you create. Because otherwise your position looks something like "don't do anything that affects your own consumption until a whole bunch of other people change their consumption first, all at the same time, and in the meantime it's cool to do all the harm you want because you're just one person, but make sure to write letters that'll do the trick."
There's a similar perspective in my country that we shouldn't do anything about climate change until China / India / "the big polluters" do something first - because somehow living inside an imaginary line on a globe that contains more people creates a greater moral imperative than living inside an imaginary line with fewer people. It's an imperative that affects all of us as individual consumers, and the more you consume as an individual, the greater the moral burden to change your own behaviour. If everybody did this, we wouldn't have a problem, and nobody would need to lobby anybody.
what does make a difference is supporting small businesses, as well as lobbying for legislation which affects businesses (local or global) and/or federal regulations on commerce. in that sense, an individual can make a large difference.
I'll take somebody who actually doesn't eat meat over somebody who says "Senator, you really *munch* should do something about *slurp* the impact these ribs have on the planet *licks fingers*."
posted by some little punk in a rocket at 6:39 PM on October 21, 2018 [1 favorite]
Except avoiding hypocrisy by living in a manner that's consistent with your publicly stated views about what is and isn't harmful to the planet and shouldering your share of the burden for moral global consumption. That, and everybody's individual contributions add up - which, in case you hadn't noticed, is how we got into this situation in the first place. A big corporation didn't just decide to set up a global climate changing machine.
Substitute "eating meat" for "setting fire to this pile of tyres in my backyard" and see if you have the same view about "individual contributions". Somehow I doubt it'd be "it's just one fire; there are heaps bigger sources of pollution out there; you should save your time lobbying against Big Oil."
what you do or don't personally consume doesn't affect the supply chain.
No, but what a lot of people do or don't personally consume does (again - that's how we got here), and the ethical thing to do is to model the behaviour you expect others to adopt and reduce the amount of harm that you create. Because otherwise your position looks something like "don't do anything that affects your own consumption until a whole bunch of other people change their consumption first, all at the same time, and in the meantime it's cool to do all the harm you want because you're just one person, but make sure to write letters that'll do the trick."
There's a similar perspective in my country that we shouldn't do anything about climate change until China / India / "the big polluters" do something first - because somehow living inside an imaginary line on a globe that contains more people creates a greater moral imperative than living inside an imaginary line with fewer people. It's an imperative that affects all of us as individual consumers, and the more you consume as an individual, the greater the moral burden to change your own behaviour. If everybody did this, we wouldn't have a problem, and nobody would need to lobby anybody.
what does make a difference is supporting small businesses, as well as lobbying for legislation which affects businesses (local or global) and/or federal regulations on commerce. in that sense, an individual can make a large difference.
I'll take somebody who actually doesn't eat meat over somebody who says "Senator, you really *munch* should do something about *slurp* the impact these ribs have on the planet *licks fingers*."
posted by some little punk in a rocket at 6:39 PM on October 21, 2018 [1 favorite]
« Older I need quotes for my People’s Vote Brexit march... | Where to read on NYC on a Friday night Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Faff at 12:31 PM on October 19, 2018 [3 favorites]