Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts - Nature Food
www.nature.com
Modelled estimates of the environmental impact of dietary choices often fail to reflect true dietary practice. This study links a dietary dataset from 55,000 UK consumers with food-level data on GHG emissions, land use, water use, eutrophication and biodiversity to compare the environmental burden of different levels of meat consumption.

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).

  • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝OPAEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    Indeed - see my other post below. The idea of an individual’s carbon footprint was just dreamt up by Big Oil to pass the blame to us. Large producers of carbon sorting their mess out would solve this overnight. Apparently, just switch replacing China’s reliance on coal with gas would put us back on track for a rise of 1.5C (or close to it, we may already be too late for that exact target). Any changes we, as individuals make, is a drop in the bucket compared to that. We should have had widespread carbon capture decades ago which would have bought us time to decarbonise our energy supplies but we can’t even manage that today.

    The upside is that it helps us feel like we have some control (illusory as that may be) and giving up red meat could be a good idea on health and welfare grounds.