Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits
[…]
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
It requires significantly more agriculture to feed animals to feed humans than to just feed humans directly. This is actually obvious if you think about it for more than a second and a half.
Yes, but animals require significantly more resources. You can grow plants to eat, or you can grow plants for a cow to eat and then eat it. The amount of energy that reaches the consumer is significantly lower for animals per unit of production required to make it. The only reason it isn’t more expensive is because it’s heavily subsidized.
Sure, it’s more complex than just that animals have to consume energy to live, but it’s simple enough that we know the answer to the question. If we focus on plants that are best for humans to consume, it’s trivial to see that feedings animals to eat wastes resources.
You’re making a staw man. Growing crops that create scraps that we can’t eat is partially only done because of subsidization of those crops to feed animals. Also, we can eat the most nutritious parts. The cob and stalk of corn are not rich in energy. Sure, cows can eat them, but they have to consume a ton of them.
If we grow crops for humans to consume, we get significantly more energy out of it than if we grow food for animals. This is trivial. Argue against this if you’re going to argue. Don’t argue against something else that’s not relevant.
But still greatly misleading. Having impact doesn’t mean having equal impact. Plant-based foods all have dramatically lower impact than any animal-based foods. See some of my comments further up the chain
Which is what i meant but the other commenter is on an antivegan crusade and is just being a debatepervert to silence vegan voices. The one time I asked them for a proof of what they said they simply terminated the conversation with a “have a nice day” 😂 let me see if i can find that thread againhttps://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/15837346
Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits
[…]
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
Have you yourself read or looked through publications on this question and formed your own opinion? If so, what is it that you think, and what is it based on?
Removed by mod
The effect animal ag has on the environment
Removed by mod
Not equally so
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/html
Removed by mod
It requires significantly more agriculture to feed animals to feed humans than to just feed humans directly. This is actually obvious if you think about it for more than a second and a half.
Yes, but animals require significantly more resources. You can grow plants to eat, or you can grow plants for a cow to eat and then eat it. The amount of energy that reaches the consumer is significantly lower for animals per unit of production required to make it. The only reason it isn’t more expensive is because it’s heavily subsidized.
Removed by mod
Sure, it’s more complex than just that animals have to consume energy to live, but it’s simple enough that we know the answer to the question. If we focus on plants that are best for humans to consume, it’s trivial to see that feedings animals to eat wastes resources.
You’re making a staw man. Growing crops that create scraps that we can’t eat is partially only done because of subsidization of those crops to feed animals. Also, we can eat the most nutritious parts. The cob and stalk of corn are not rich in energy. Sure, cows can eat them, but they have to consume a ton of them.
If we grow crops for humans to consume, we get significantly more energy out of it than if we grow food for animals. This is trivial. Argue against this if you’re going to argue. Don’t argue against something else that’s not relevant.
Removed by mod
If only that were true…
Mods please ban this shill.
Either completely illiterate or an animal ag shill, or ai bot.
True.
But still greatly misleading. Having impact doesn’t mean having equal impact. Plant-based foods all have dramatically lower impact than any animal-based foods. See some of my comments further up the chain
Which is what i meant but the other commenter is on an antivegan crusade and is just being a debatepervert to silence vegan voices. The one time I asked them for a proof of what they said they simply terminated the conversation with a “have a nice day” 😂
let me see if i can find that thread againhttps://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/15837346Removed by mod
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/html
Removed by mod
Have you yourself read or looked through publications on this question and formed your own opinion? If so, what is it that you think, and what is it based on?
Removed by mod
Are you a fucking AI robot? The data is innumerable. It’s huge. It’s all in your face. It 100x* is better for the environment to eat plant-based.
reality?
Removed by mod
what’s your evidence that it isn’t evidence?
disengage
Removed by mod
This is some ai bot shit right here. @moderator please ban.
FYI: The Disengage Rule