this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
58 points (98.3% liked)

vegan

6785 readers
5 users here now

:vegan-liberation:

Welcome to /c/vegan and congratulations on your first steps toward overcoming liberalism and ascending to true leftist moral superiority.

Rules

Resources

Animal liberation and direct action

Read theory, libs

Vegan 101 & FAQs

If you have any great resources or theory you think belong in this sidebar, please message one of the comm's mods

Take B12. :vegan-edge:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

All environmental indicators showed a positive association with amounts of animal-based food consumed. Dietary impacts of vegans were 25.1% (95% uncertainty interval, 15.1–37.0%) of high meat-eaters (≥100 g total meat consumed per day) for greenhouse gas emissions, 25.1% (7.1–44.5%) for land use, 46.4% (21.0–81.0%) for water use, 27.0% (19.4–40.4%) for eutrophication and 34.3% (12.0–65.3%) for biodiversity. At least 30% differences were found between low and high meat-eaters for most indicators. Despite substantial variation due to where and how food is produced, the relationship between environmental impact and animal-based food consumption is clear and should prompt the reduction of the latter.

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AernaLingus@hexbear.net 27 points 3 months ago

The overall result isn't surprising, but the methane stats are particularly impressive: vegans are in an entirely different postal code compared to everyone else.

[–] LocalMaxima@hexbear.net 19 points 3 months ago

vegetarians eat less dairy overall but more cheese than meat eaters

not beating the allegations

Also, the high meat category is 100+ grams (around uk average) and the average USian meat consumption is close to 350g/d, so US vegans might be single digits percentages of their meat eating counterparts if a similar methodology was applied

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 17 points 3 months ago
[–] MF_COOM@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I'm kind of surprised how small the difference is w.r.t. carbon emissions, but I saw that they're counting land use differently and I guess not accounting for the increased carbon emissions from requiring much more forest land to be burned down and turned into pasture to support meat diets?

[–] Glitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I would suggest that eating meat !== burning down forest land. That's a policy and regulation issue that could be corrected or severely reduced. It's the policy makers, paid out by industry lobbies, who allow for such absurdity

[–] MF_COOM@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Where do you think pasture land comes from

[–] Glitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago

From the cheapest lots available. Prices are dictated or influenced by legislation. If we can pay farmers to NOT grow corn, we can pay farmers to use specific kinds of lands, revitalize dying landscapes, and support natural ecosystems.

[–] ButtBidet@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

I guess you're going to do your part to stop supporting those industries?