Easy, healthy way to cut personal food emission in half

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2011
63,929
9,959
2,040
Not Eating Meat Can Cut Your Food-Related Carbon Emissions Almost In Half, Study Finds | ThinkProgress

If you’re trying to reduce your carbon footprint, you may want to think twice next time you reach for a burger. According to a new study, people with a high-meat diet contribute more than twice the diet-related greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere as a vegan, and a little less than twice the emissions of a vegetarian.

The study, published in the journal Climatic Change, looked at the diets of 55,504 people in the U.K., who took a survey asking them how many times per year they ate 130 different foods. The researchers then placed the people into groups of high, medium, and low meat-eaters, along with fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans, based on their responses to the survey. They found that, on average, meat-eaters contributed 46 to 51 percent more food-related greenhouse gas emissions than fish eaters, 50 to 54 percent more than vegetarians and 99 to 102 percent more than vegans. The difference between high meat-eaters and vegetarians and vegans was even more distinct — high meat-eaters contributed an average 7.19 kg of CO2 equivalent each day, while vegetarians contributed 3.81 kgCO2e and vegans contributed 2.89 kgCO2e.

The study also noted that health benefits often came with choosing to eat less meat — the researchers noted “significant trends” toward higher intake of fiber and fruits and vegetables and lower intake of saturated fat as animal-based foods decreased in diets. The study, the researchers write, illustrates that eating less meat, even on the individual level, can help reduce carbon emissions.

“This work demonstrates that reducing the intake of meat and other animal based products can make a valuable contribution to climate change mitigation,” the researchers write. “Other work has demonstrated other environmental and health benefits of a reduced meat diet. National governments that are considering an update of dietary recommendations in order to define a ‘healthy, sustainable diet’ must incorporate the recommendation to lower the consumption of animal-based products.”


Studies Sound Red Alert On Beef's Global Warming Toll | ThinkProgress

The best way to cut your food-related carbon footprint is probably not to eat any meat, but if you’re not willing to go that far a new study breaks down the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) of different types of meat and beef is by far the worst.

Research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that livestock emissions are on the rise and that beef cattle are responsible for far more GHGs than other animals, including chicken and pork. Meat production’s heavy environmental toll is not new, but the scale is surprising: The study found that beef requires 28 times more land to produce than pork or chicken, 11 times more water, and results in five times more GHG emissions.

A similar study published in the journal Climate Change this week found that from 1961 to 2010 global GHGs from livestock increased 51 percent. Much of this is due to increased demand for meat, especially in developing countries. So even as developed countries curtail demand and become more efficient producers, the scale of the problem is growing along with global GHG concentrations.

“The developing world is getting better at reducing greenhouse emissions caused by each animal, but this improvement is not keeping up with the increasing demand for meat,” said Dario Caro, a researcher on the study. “As a result, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock keep going up and up in much of the developing world.”

Researchers found that beef and dairy cattle account for just about three-fourths of livestock-related GHG emissions, with 54 percent coming from beef cattle and 17 percent from dairy cattle. This is partly due to the sheer abundance of the animal but also from the higher levels of methane and nitrous oxide that they emit. Sheep comprised nine percent, buffalo seven percent, pigs five percent, and goats four percent.

On an energy-required-per-calorie assessment, pork, poultry, and eggs have roughly the same degree of environmental cost, and dairy is comparable as well.

It really is easy. Just don't eat it.

And, we all know its a lot healthier and a very easy way to lose weight.

Best of all, you're not causing the horrendous cruelty of the meat industry.
 
Did they take the human, food-related, bio-emissions of the anal variety into account? I think a Vegan diet can radically increase one's personal emissions. Now, maybe we're not the size of a cow, but one cow makes a large pile of burgers that will make a large number of human meals. And if I eat a cow, he's pretty much done farting. Know what I mean Bert?
 
Vegan Bodybuilder Displays Superhuman Strength In Must See Video | The Mind Unleashed

0e09eb5564fd0bde519de2a67865d0b7.jpg


You really don't have to be sick and tired and lazy. Look at these folks and check out the video.

Mr. & Ms. Lean Muscles | Natural Food & Lifestyle
 
Do it!

More bacon for the rest of us.
 
Did they take the human, food-related, bio-emissions of the anal variety into account? I think a Vegan diet can radically increase one's personal emissions. Now, maybe we're not the size of a cow, but one cow makes a large pile of burgers that will make a large number of human meals. And if I eat a cow, he's pretty much done farting. Know what I mean Bert?

Eating cow is very wasteful. Takes a lot of money, water and other resources to run your food through an animal before you eat it.

Read John Rrobbins and Kathy Freston.
 
Not Eating Meat Can Cut Your Food-Related Carbon Emissions Almost In Half, Study Finds | ThinkProgress

If you’re trying to reduce your carbon footprint, you may want to think twice next time you reach for a burger. According to a new study, people with a high-meat diet contribute more than twice the diet-related greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere as a vegan, and a little less than twice the emissions of a vegetarian.

The study, published in the journal Climatic Change, looked at the diets of 55,504 people in the U.K., who took a survey asking them how many times per year they ate 130 different foods. The researchers then placed the people into groups of high, medium, and low meat-eaters, along with fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans, based on their responses to the survey. They found that, on average, meat-eaters contributed 46 to 51 percent more food-related greenhouse gas emissions than fish eaters, 50 to 54 percent more than vegetarians and 99 to 102 percent more than vegans. The difference between high meat-eaters and vegetarians and vegans was even more distinct — high meat-eaters contributed an average 7.19 kg of CO2 equivalent each day, while vegetarians contributed 3.81 kgCO2e and vegans contributed 2.89 kgCO2e.

The study also noted that health benefits often came with choosing to eat less meat — the researchers noted “significant trends” toward higher intake of fiber and fruits and vegetables and lower intake of saturated fat as animal-based foods decreased in diets. The study, the researchers write, illustrates that eating less meat, even on the individual level, can help reduce carbon emissions.

“This work demonstrates that reducing the intake of meat and other animal based products can make a valuable contribution to climate change mitigation,” the researchers write. “Other work has demonstrated other environmental and health benefits of a reduced meat diet. National governments that are considering an update of dietary recommendations in order to define a ‘healthy, sustainable diet’ must incorporate the recommendation to lower the consumption of animal-based products.”


Studies Sound Red Alert On Beef's Global Warming Toll | ThinkProgress

The best way to cut your food-related carbon footprint is probably not to eat any meat, but if you’re not willing to go that far a new study breaks down the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) of different types of meat and beef is by far the worst.

Research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that livestock emissions are on the rise and that beef cattle are responsible for far more GHGs than other animals, including chicken and pork. Meat production’s heavy environmental toll is not new, but the scale is surprising: The study found that beef requires 28 times more land to produce than pork or chicken, 11 times more water, and results in five times more GHG emissions.

A similar study published in the journal Climate Change this week found that from 1961 to 2010 global GHGs from livestock increased 51 percent. Much of this is due to increased demand for meat, especially in developing countries. So even as developed countries curtail demand and become more efficient producers, the scale of the problem is growing along with global GHG concentrations.

“The developing world is getting better at reducing greenhouse emissions caused by each animal, but this improvement is not keeping up with the increasing demand for meat,” said Dario Caro, a researcher on the study. “As a result, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock keep going up and up in much of the developing world.”

Researchers found that beef and dairy cattle account for just about three-fourths of livestock-related GHG emissions, with 54 percent coming from beef cattle and 17 percent from dairy cattle. This is partly due to the sheer abundance of the animal but also from the higher levels of methane and nitrous oxide that they emit. Sheep comprised nine percent, buffalo seven percent, pigs five percent, and goats four percent.

On an energy-required-per-calorie assessment, pork, poultry, and eggs have roughly the same degree of environmental cost, and dairy is comparable as well.

It really is easy. Just don't eat it.

And, we all know its a lot healthier and a very easy way to lose weight.

Best of all, you're not causing the horrendous cruelty of the meat industry.
....................^^ Exhibit A .....typical lefty loony liberal fruitcake. . :cuckoo: :lol: :lol:
 
Did they take the human, food-related, bio-emissions of the anal variety into account? I think a Vegan diet can radically increase one's personal emissions. Now, maybe we're not the size of a cow, but one cow makes a large pile of burgers that will make a large number of human meals. And if I eat a cow, he's pretty much done farting. Know what I mean Bert?

Eating cow is very wasteful. Takes a lot of money, water and other resources to run your food through an animal before you eat it.

Read John Rrobbins and Kathy Freston.


Nobody's forcing you to eat a cheeseburger or a steak.
 
It really is easy. Just don't eat it.

And, we all know its a lot healthier and a very easy way to lose weight.

Best of all, you're not causing the horrendous cruelty of the meat industry.

It also turns you into one giant pussy, which explains you to a tee.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eating meat is enormously inefficient. And meat has quite a lot of stuff 'ats not so good for you. Like saturated fats and cholesterol. If you're not completely vegan, skim milk is the most efficient (ie: densest) source of protein. But man do I get a craving for a Whopper with Cheese.
 
Are we going to ban cattle now? How about restrict cattle production? Require the collection and quarantine of livestock poo?

Of course not- it's agriculture and agriculture has carte blanche when it comes to polluting the planet.

BUT... gotta make sure that Keystone Pipeline is AGW neutral, and those natural gas gathering lines don't leak, and those drilling operations don't release any noxious gasses.

What a fucking joke.
 
Eating meat is enormously inefficient. And meat has quite a lot of stuff 'ats not so good for you. Like saturated fats and cholesterol. If you're not completely vegan, skim milk is the most efficient (ie: densest) source of protein. But man do I get a craving for a Whopper with Cheese.

Bull. I eat meat pretty much every single day and have done so for years, both red and white. Yet, my body fat level is only slightly over 10%. My cholesterol levels are within normal range. I exercise almost every day and am an amateur fighter. I'm healthier than the vast majority of people.
 
Are we going to ban cattle now? How about restrict cattle production? Require the collection and quarantine of livestock poo?

Of course not- it's agriculture and agriculture has carte blanche when it comes to polluting the planet.

BUT... gotta make sure that Keystone Pipeline is AGW neutral, and those natural gas gathering lines don't leak, and those drilling operations don't release any noxious gasses.

What a fucking joke.

Its very possible it could come to that.

There are already places around the world and in the US that don't have enough water. And, that's just the beginning.
 
People have their own choice of food to eat; we have our every right to eat and not to eat meat or what. What should be more important is to have that initiative or will to help our mother nature in some other way; I know there are some other ways to help our environment, not just by cutting food intakes or emissions. Just my two cents.
 
I am cutting down my carbon footprint emissions with my invention which when connected to the anus will create methane gas reserves for future use in energy production...
 
How very noble of you. Where do you store it in case you pass before it can be utilized?

Get it? Pass? Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk.
 
Grow your own.

This will cut down immensely on your carbon-footprint.

Don't eat anything unless you grew it yourself.

Produce your own bio-fuels to power your generators.

Stop using cell phones and computers.

No more air-conditioning.

Don't burn wood for heat. Burn your own feces.

Learn to make your own clothing.

After just a few months of this shit liberals will be dropping like flies.
 

Forum List

Back
Top