But would that be just beef, or beef and milk and cheese and leather so all cow products?
Comment on Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts
tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 1 year ago
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.
amscan@feddit.uk 1 year ago
tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 1 year ago
It was broken down into individual elements, IIRC… found it…
philsturgeon.com/…/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:
Emperor@feddit.uk 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.