What can I do for the environment?

Tomorrow is World Environment Day. Did you know that following a vegan diet could be the single biggest way for an individual to reduce their impact on the planet?

That’s according to a 2018 study by the University of Oxford which found that an individual cutting meat and dairy from their diet could reduce their carbon footprint from food by as much as 73%. That’s HUGE!
 
Damn! That is amazing. I hope that he was right.
My carbon footprint might be worse, because I eat a lot of bananas, TVP and some nuts.
 
Yes, that study is about right. We could dispute the exact number of 64-73% of course. Depending on specific case and specific study, it might be 60% for example. But definately meat and dairy is very high in its carbon footprint per calorie. Pretty much every analysis every done points to a huge benefit from cutting out meat. If they have to grow about 5 or 10 plates of plant foods to feed to the animal to create 1 plate of dead animal food, then obviously per calorie you are looking at 5-10x the emissions per calorie just to get the animal feed to the farm gate, before you even factor in the emissions of running the factory farms, slaughterhouses, and cow belches. So if 20% of your food is dead animals and 80% plants, then the 20% tends to have a higher environmental impact than the 80%!

And don't worry about bananas, bananas are fine! I am not sure why you think bananas are high carbon? Maybe because they are shipped from far away countries? But, it turns out, that bananas last long enough to go on a boat rather than a plane, and the boat emissions are actually not that bad per banana once you cram enough bananas onto one boat.

Same for nuts, I don't think they are high carbon.

Food miles is an overrated problem. As long as the food is traveling at the ground level without refrigeration, it should be fine. For non-air freighted food, the food miles do add to the carbon footprint, but usually less than the production of the food.

The only high carbon vegan foods are ones that have travelled long haul by plane, and rice mainly because of the methane bubbling out of the rice paddies and the fertilizer they add. And any food where you eat half of it and throw the rest away is kind of high carbon because in a way you've doubled the footprint.

It's very unlikely for any vegan to have a higher foodprint than any regular meat eater.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: bEt and Lou
I haven't looked into this but there could be some economics of scale involved.

I read an article years back that Farmer's Markets might have a larger carbon footprint than what you would expect because the produce goes to the farmer's markets in smaller lots and we take them home in smaller amounts. I take care of the back half by walking to my farmer's markets.

That asparagus from South America might not be as bad as we expect if the produce comes most of the way in really large amounts.
 
Asparagus from South America is bad (except for me lol, I live in South America) because it has to go in a plane because it won't last the boat trip. Anything that goes in a plane long haul is bad.

The boat trip from Peru adds a small amount to the carbon footprint, while the plane trip adds a huge amount.

The basic rule is look on the packet and see if it says plane or not. It probably usually doesn't so just guess - if it's out of season product that wouldn't survive a long boat trip, it's probably been flown, so don't buy it.

That being said, if it's an occassional special treat it's actually still quite small impact compared to a person flying in a plane. It's probably only worth the bother of making these kinds of judgements for products you buy regularly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bEt and Lou
This is what I need to do. I weigh 175 pounds when I should weigh 140 pounds. Thin people can tolerate the heat better. Thus, I will have less need for air conditioning during the arizona heat.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: bEt
The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2006 report, Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options, reports exhaustively on the environmental impact of livestock raising.

Here is a link to the report: Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options

The executive summary of this report includes these statements:

"
Land degradation
The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. The total area occupied by grazing is equivalent to 26 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet. In addition, the total area dedicated to feedcrop production amounts to 33 percent of total arable land. In all, livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land surface of the planet.

Expansion of livestock production is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America where the greatest amount of deforestation is occurring – 70 percent of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feedcrops cover a large part of the remainder. About 20 percent of the world’s pastures and rangelands, with 73 percent of rangelands in dry areas, have been degraded to some extent, mostly through overgrazing, compaction and erosion created by livestock action. The dry lands in particular are affected by these trends, as livestock are often the only source of livelihoods for the people living in these areas.

Overgrazing can be reduced by grazing fees and by removing obstacles to mobility on common property pastures. Land degradation can be limited and reversed through soil conservation methods, silvopastoralism, better management of grazing systems, limits to uncontrolled burning by pastoralists and controlled exclusion from sensitive areas.
"

"
Atmosphere and climate
With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race.

The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.

The livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The largest share of this derives from land-use changes – especially deforestation – caused by expansion of pastures and arable land for feedcrops. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

This high level of emissions opens up large opportunities for climate change mitigation through livestock actions. Intensification – in terms of increased productivity both in livestock production and in feedcrop agriculture – can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and pasture degradation. In addition, restoring historical losses of soil carbon through conservation tillage, cover crops, agroforestry and other measures could sequester up to 1.3 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year, with additional amounts available through restoration of desertified pastures. Methane emissions can be reduced through improved diets to reduce enteric fermentation, improved manure management and biogas – which also provide renewable energy. Nitrogen emissions can be reduced through improved diets and manure management.

The Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism (CDM) can be used to finance the spread of biogas and silvopastoral initiatives involving afforestation and reforestation. Methodologies should be developed so that the CDM can finance other livestock-related options such as soil carbon sequestration through rehabilitation of degraded pastures.
"

"
Water
The world is moving towards increasing problems of freshwater shortage, scarcity and depletion, with 64 percent of the world’s population expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025.

The livestock sector is a key player in increasing water use, accounting for over 8 percent of global human water use, mostly for the irrigation of feedcrops. It is probably the largest sectoral source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, “dead” zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, emergence of antibiotic resistance and many others. The major sources of pollution are from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feedcrops, and sediments from eroded pastures. Global figures are not available but in the United States, with the world’s fourth largest land area, livestock are responsible for an estimated 55 percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus into freshwater resources.

Livestock also affect the replenishment of freshwater by compacting soil, reducing infiltration, degrading the banks of watercourses, drying up floodplains and lowering water tables. Livestock’s contribution to deforestation also increases runoff and reduces dry season flows.

Water use can be reduced through improving the efficiency of irrigation systems. Livestock’s impact on erosion, sedimentation and water regulation can be addressed by measures against land degradation. Pollution can be tackled through better management of animal waste in industrial production units, better diets to improve nutrient absorption, improved manure management (including biogas) and better use of processed manure on croplands. Industrial livestock production should be decentralized to accessible croplands where wastes can be recycled without overloading soils and freshwater.

Policy measures that would help in reducing water use and pollution include full cost pricing of water (to cover supply costs, as well as economic and environmental externalities), regulatory frameworks for limiting inputs and scale, specifying required equipment and discharge levels, zoning regulations and taxes to discourage large-scale concentrations close to cities, as well as the development of secure water rights and water markets, and participatory management of watersheds.
"
.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: bEt and Lou
This 2014 United Nations report on agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions is also informative: Agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions on the rise, warns UN agency .

It's a 1-page summary report - worth the read.

Here are some useful data bits from the report. I underlined some points for emphasis:

"The largest source of emissions within agriculture is enteric fermentation – methane produced by livestock during digestion and released via belches. In 2011, this accounted for 39 per cent of the sector's total greenhouse gas outputs and increased 11 per cent between 2001 and 2011."

"In 2011, 14 per cent of agricultural emissions (725 Mt CO2 eq.) were generated while applying synthetic fertilizers – the fastest growing emissions source in agriculture – having increased some 37 per cent since 2001."

"Greenhouse gases resulting from biological processes in rice paddies that generate methane make up 10 per cent of total agricultural emissions, while burning savannahs accounts for 5 per cent."

"FAO data revealed that in 2011, 45 per cent of agriculture-related greenhouse gas outputs occurred in Asia – followed by 25 per cent in the Americas, five per cent in Africa, eleven per cent in Europe and four per cent in Oceania."
.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: bEt, Lou and Hog
Please help me understand the rice issue. Should I stop eating rice? I keep on hearing on VF that there are problems with rice.

=====

At the risk of hijacking this thread, should I replace wheat bread with oat bread.
 
Please help me understand the rice issue. Should I stop eating rice? I keep on hearing on VF that there are problems with rice.

=====

At the risk of hijacking this thread, should I replace wheat bread with oat bread.


I'm not sure what problems you've heard about rice, but if it's about the arsenic content, this video should be helpful.

 
I think he is concerned about the environmental footprint. Besides rice using a lot of water it also produces more GHG than most grains. (Rice paddies produce methane) I looked around a bit and couldn't find anything definitive.

one thing i do know is that in California they are doing experiments with growing rice using less water and producing less methane.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: silva
Please help me understand the rice issue. Should I stop eating rice? I keep on hearing on VF that there are problems with rice.

=====

At the risk of hijacking this thread, should I replace wheat bread with oat bread.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has published a report on rice and greenhouse gas emissions: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Rice/rice_fact_sheet.pdf

Among cereal crops, rice generates a disproportionately large share of greenhouse gas emissions. This is because rice is grown in shallow, stagnant lakes (rice paddies), which harbor the growth of anaerobic bacteria - these bacteria produce methane (a greenhouse gas) as one of their metabolic wastes.

Per the U.N. FAO, the vast majority (89%) of rice-cultivation greenhouse gases are emitted from Asia: FAOSTAT

1591751975974.png

Per this study from Oregon State University, China has been modifying its rice-cultivation practices in order to reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions: Emissions Of Greenhouse Gases From Rice Agriculture (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV
.
 

Attachments

  • 1591751889176.png
    1591751889176.png
    157.9 KB · Views: 0
Thank you for the responses to my question. I did a poor job of phrasing the question.

I am getting too caught up in unnecessary details. I think I finally realise that now.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: KLS52
I stopped cooking rice myself, and choosing it in restaurants a few years ago because of the carbon footprint. Sushi is OK because it's tiny amounts of rice.

I did dither about whether to ask my wife to stop cooking me rice and eventually I did this year but she has ignored me so far. But the most important thing is she is still cooking me great vegan food. She did me a lentil burger the other day (rice was even one of the ingredients) and it was amazing. Lentils burgers! Every one I've ever tried is amazing. Even the one I made myself once was good which is a surprise because I can't even cook.

Never eating a grain of rice is definately overkill, but having it as your main staple probably isn't the best either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bEt and David3
I read up a little bit on rice yesterday.
The arsenic issue can be mitigated buy not buying brown rice and buying balsamic rice instead. Soaking your rice and rinsing it out well helps a lot. Rinsing after cooking is also advised. And moderating your rice intake.

The carbon issue for rice can be mitigated by buying locally grown rice. This is especially true in California where rice growers already use less water than the global average. The water use is not just bad from a water use viewpoint but also the more water use - the more methane is released into the atmosphere. And moderating your rice intake.
 
I think he is concerned about the environmental footprint.

Ah, I see. Well, much like almonds, I know rice requires a lot of water to grow. At the end of the day, I would have to think that farming livestock is by far worse for the environment than growing rice in any capacity.

I buy local California rice ;)


*
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
  • Informative
Reactions: Hog
This topic is coming up a lot recently


The author shies away from endorsing Vegan as the best. And for a good reason that I haven't seen before.

A strict vegan diet can put people at risk of deficiencies unless they can have access to particular foods or take supplements. Yet both specialist food and supplements are too expensive for many people around the world and it would be hard to scale up supplements production to provide for billions of extra people.​
He also may have coined another label: Ultra Flexatarian: a diet of mostly plant-based foods but one that allows meat and dairy products in extreme moderation, but red and processed meat are completely banned.
 
This topic is coming up a lot recently


The author shies away from endorsing Vegan as the best. And for a good reason that I haven't seen before.

A strict vegan diet can put people at risk of deficiencies unless they can have access to particular foods or take supplements. Yet both specialist food and supplements are too expensive for many people around the world and it would be hard to scale up supplements production to provide for billions of extra people.​
He also may have coined another label: Ultra Flexatarian: a diet of mostly plant-based foods but one that allows meat and dairy products in extreme moderation, but red and processed meat are completely banned.
.
The United Nations World Food Programme provides free supplements, and free fortified foods, to communities that need them: Nutrition | World Food Programme

"WFP tackles micronutrient deficiencies with strategies like micronutrient powders (or ‘sprinkles’ of vitamins or minerals) which can be added to home-cooked meals, fortification of staple foods with nutrients, and education to promote diet diversity."
 
  • Like
Reactions: bEt and Lou