which one, a car key or a fork, contribute more to global warming?

wedigfood

Forum Devotee
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Reaction score
13
Age
68
Location
Thousand Oaks, California
I recently posted this to my blog, thought I would ask here.

It's not the one that starts a car. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, animal agribusiness contributes to global warming even more than transportation does. Reducing the amount of meat, eggs and dairy products, (please reduce to none!), in your diet is one of the most effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
 
And electric power for other purposes dwarfs them both :p

I am of course not disagreeing that cutting back on animal products is a good choice we can all personally make. It is, however, the tip of the iceberg.
 
Which is why we should, like Europe, specifically Germany, move as fast as possible with solar, wind and conservation. Coal is a poison. Read Gray Mountain by John Grisham, just came out, captivating novel, build around the travesty of the coal industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbaylessharrold
Even Germany is in the midst of building new coal plants, which still make up its largest source of energy. Solar is definitely worth improving on, but at present solar panels are still a petroleum based product and the chat of making them a sizeable portion of our power needs would be astronomical and actually increase our dependency on petroleum in the short term as we develop solar based infrastructure.

In the near future, even with incidents like those in Japan, nuclear is the cleanest, safest source we've got that is actually a realistic option, unless some new breakthrough is made.

Not to detail the thread... I am in full agreement that we should receive our dependency on both environmentally harmful food production and fossil fuels. Easier said than done, though.
 
Just looked it up, yes and wow, am very surprised. Quite a controversial subject in Germany. Has to do with the price of coal being very low. After reading so many articles on how Germany is leading the world in renewable energy production I am disappointed. And I agree, always easier said than done. Here is the link to the article if you are interested, Germany.

I had an engineering professor who felt the same way you do about nuclear. I understand the argument, but Japan AND Chernobyl and possibly more, to me, its just not worth it especially with all the terrorism around the world.

Conservation is always overlooked although it really is the least expensive and simplest.
 
I think its important to note that there are profound environmental differences from animal food to animal food and also from production method to method. Factory farmed beef is, by far, the most environmentally damaging so forgoing beef would be the single most important thing you could do. The production of some animal based products can be more sustainable than large scale crop farming.

I don't think there is any compelling environmental argument for veganism.
 
I think its important to note that there are profound environmental differences from animal food to animal food and also from production method to method. Factory farmed beef is, by far, the most environmentally damaging so forgoing beef would be the single most important thing you could do. The production of some animal based products can be more sustainable than large scale crop farming.

I don't think there is any compelling environmental argument for veganism.
Link?
 
You like to ask for links for complex issues, but here is a study showing the addition of small amounts of animal products will improve sustainability:

Diet for small planet may be most efficient if it includes dairy and a little meat, Cornell researchers report | Cornell Chronicle

Another issue is that vegan and vegetarian are very general categories and as such can't easily be compared to other diets. If you compare a western style, that is relatively high in fat with processed foods, vegan or vegetarian diet to the standard western diet the vegetarian/vegan diets are more sustainable but that is much different than concluding that vegan or vegetarian diets are always more sustainable....its pretty clear that using the biomass from crop agriculture that we don't use to produce some animal based foods would increase the output, and hence sustainability, of the food system. For example foliage waste can be used to fed dairy goats and low quality grains can be used to fed hens for egg production.

In any case, there is a strong environmental case to reduce the consumption of animal based foods and to move away from factory farming....but none for a 100% vegan diet. Any argument for veganism, I think, must hinge on ethics.
 
I've sometimes wondered about all the hay that is left over from crops like wheat, barley etc. I see it baled in the fields. It could be burnt, I suppose, but it is useful to feed animals.
 
Strauss Family Creamery in California powers almost their entire operation with their cows' poop using a methane digester. I should get one of those for my house.
 
I just read the Cornell report and here a two quotes I pulled.

"The researchers compared 42 diets with the same number of calories and a core of grains, fruits, vegetables and dairy products (using only foods that can be produced in New York state),"

"Meat and dairy products from ruminant animals are supported by lower quality, but more widely available, land that can support pasture and hay. A large pool of such land is available in New York state because for sustainable use, most farmland requires a crop rotation with such perennial crops as pasture and hay."

As you can see the report didn't include a vegan diet and the study was only done in New York State, which happens to have a large area of lower quality farmland. So how would one draw any relevant conclusions from the report?
 
Frances Moore Lappé is probably the leading writer pointing out the connection between animal agriculture and environmental destruction. Her 1971 book, Diet for a Small Planet, has been reprinted many times.

Diet for a Small Planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Her philosophy has been called environmental vegetarianism.

Environmental vegetarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That animal agriculture is more environmentally destructive than many other environmental threats is the thesis of the recent movie documentary Cowspiracy.

Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret (2014) - IMDb

COWSPIRACY

 
Last edited:
As you can see the report didn't include a vegan diet and the study was only done in New York State, which happens to have a large area of lower quality farmland. So how would one draw any relevant conclusions from the report?
The report considered dairy and meat intake so, yes, it did essentially include a vegan diet. The conclusion to draw from the report is that a vegetarian (or vegan) food systems isn't necessarily the most sustainable due to the way land is used....also that the details matter as well. That is, not all vegetarian or vegan diets have the same environmental impact....if one was going to motivate vegetarianism or veganism on environmental grounds it would have to be a lower-fat fat diet based primarily on local whole foods.
 
The report considered dairy and meat intake so, yes, it did essentially include a vegan diet. The conclusion to draw from the report is that a vegetarian (or vegan) food systems isn't necessarily the most sustainable due to the way land is used....also that the details matter as well. That is, not all vegetarian or vegan diets have the same environmental impact....if one was going to motivate vegetarianism or veganism on environmental grounds it would have to be a lower-fat fat diet based primarily on local whole foods.

I agree that local food sourcing is vital. Obviously non-local food has a drastically different effect on the environment than local food.

I am not sure meant to put these two terms together in the quote above, "vegetarian (or vegan)", since you can't possibly believe they are remotely similar. I guess we should agree to disagree, the Cornell report said nothing about a totally vegan diet.
 
I am not sure meant to put these two terms together in the quote above, "vegetarian (or vegan)", since you can't possibly believe they are remotely similar. I guess we should agree to disagree, the Cornell report said nothing about a totally vegan diet.
While there are obviously differences I'm not sure why you'd think that vegetarian and vegan diets are radical different, both avoid meat which is the largest source of animal based foods in western culture. Also, in terms of the environment, meat is more problematic than dairy or eggs so environmentally the two are fairly close as general dietary categories go. The Cornell report doesn't need to explicitly mention vegans to derive information about vegan diets from the study, the point of the study is that plant and animal agriculture require different quality of land and in some areas a semi-vegetarian diet has environmental advantage over vegetarian or vegan diets.

In any case, the sustainability of vegetarian or vegan diets depends largely on the particular choices people make. Vegetarian or vegan diets aren't always more sustainable than diets that include some meat...it depends on the details. All you can say is that, all things equal, meat reduction tends to improve the sustainability of ones diet.