this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
20 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4108 readers
167 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/5586412

Fig. 2: Relative environmental footprint from GHG emissions of diet groups in comparison to high meat-eaters (>100 g d−1).

Fig. 3: Relative environmental footprint from GWP100, land use, water use, eutrophication potential and biodiversity impact of diet groups in comparison to high meat-eaters (>100 g d−1).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

PIty it isn't broken down by type.. I've seen similar research that suggests that beef accounts for a good 90% of the footprint of a meat eater. That's important because you might be able persuade a few people to shift their diet to only vegetables but a whole lot more would be OK with just giving up beef.

[–] Emperor 5 points 1 year ago

I imagine the bulk of the beef eaters are in the high and medium meat eaters category (as you might expect). There's a strong drip off then to the low meat eaters/pescetarians/vegetarians which tend to group together.

I'd class myself as a low meat eater and rarely eat red meat (I've also gone over to oat milk) - it's better for you and because cows produce the bulk of the methane in our diet it helps with the environmental impact. I am pleased to see that completely getting rid of meat from my diet wouldn't do that much to improve my carbon footprint unless I went vegan, which seems doubtful.

That said, the idea of our individual environmental footprints is largely an invention of the fossil fuel industry to shift the blame from themselves. The other day, I heard on the radio that if China switched off its coal-fired power stations and replaced them with gas, we'd be back on track to a rise of 1.5C, which makes me giving up the cow seem pretty small beans.

Ah well, it's chickpea and spinach curry not for the planet but because it's damn tasty.

[–] amscan 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But would that be just beef, or beef and milk and cheese and leather so all cow products?

[–] tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 1 points 1 year ago

It was broken down into individual elements, IIRC.. found it..

https://philsturgeon.com/content/images/2023/04/foods-carbon-footprint-7.jpg

Meat Lover -> No Beef alone is 3.3 -> 1.7, or 80% of the saving you get by going vegetarian (so I was slightly misremembering on my original post).

Full article:

https://philsturgeon.com/unf-king-the-climate-food/