People who follow a plant-based diet account for 75 percent less in greenhouse gas emissions than those who eat more than 3.5 ounces of meat a day, and a vegan diet also results in significantly less harm to land, water and biodiversity, according to new research from the University of Oxford.
While the link between animal agriculture and environmental harm is well established, earlier studies used scientific modeling to reach those conclusions. By contrast, the Oxford research drew from the actual diets of 55,500 people — vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters — in the United Kingdom and used data from some 38,000 farms in 119 countries.
The peer-reviewed study, led by Peter Scarborough, a professor of population health at Oxford, was published on Thursday in the journal Nature Food.
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.
If meat eaters in the United Kingdom who consumed more than 3.5 ounces of a meat a day (slightly less than the size of a quarter pound burger) cut their intake to less than 1.7 ounces a day (roughly the amount of a single McDonald’s meat patty) it would be the equivalent of taking 8 millions cars off the road, Dr. Scarborough said.
The study found that, compared to meat-heavy diets, vegan diets resulted in 75 percent less land use, 54 percent less water use, and 66 percent less biodiversity loss. A vegan diet avoids all animal products, including meat, eggs and dairy.
In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, people who ate more than 3.5 ounces of meat daily accounted for 22.5 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a day due to, among other variables, the farming of livestock and land used to grow animal feed. People who ate less than 1.7 ounces of meat accounted for about half that amount, or about 11.8 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions, while fish eaters accounted for 10.4 pounds of carbon dioxide a day, and vegetarian diets produced 9 pounds of carbon dioxide daily. Vegan diets had the lowest totals, accounting for 5.4 pounds of carbon dioxide a day.
There were parallel effects on freshwater pollution and biodiversity loss by diet type. In terms of land and water use and effects on species’ extinction, vegetarians, fish eaters and low meat diets had similar results.
The study also found that vegans and vegetarians were on average younger than fish and meat eaters.
Dr. Scarborough said while critiques of plant-based diets often highlighted environmental effects of select vegan foods, such as the volume of water required to produce almond-milk, the new research showed that plant-based diets had far less of an environmental toll than animal-based ones, regardless of how the food was produced.
“The study expands on past work, underlining that vegan and vegetarian diets have much lower environmental impact than fish and meat consumption. The region of origin and methods of food production do not obscure the differences between diet groups and should not be a barrier to policy actions aimed at reducing animal-based food consumption.”
https://www.alumni.ox.ac.uk/article/less-meat-better-for-environment
Lead author Scarborough:
“Cherry-picking data on high impact plant-based food or low impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment.”
For general conclusions, that’s true, and for assessing the impact on the planet the aggregate (survey of actual farms) matters. But if you individually “cherry pick” the lowest-impact animal-based food or car or thermostat setting or clothing purchases, your personal impact could be lower.
[NB: I’ve reduced my carbon footprint in a lot of ways, but I still have a lot of bad (suboptimal?) habits that are hard to break.]
NO! By the time you get to vote on a candidate, it’s too fucking late! Anyone willing to work for the changes we need has already been eliminated by the duopoly.
In gerrymandered voter-suppressed districts, & whole states, such people were eliminated before their mothers were born, like the mutating effects of phthalates that damage eggs in the wombs of unborn girls and so throw their creepy voices 80 years into the future.
Voting is pointless unless you’ve organized & brought a progressive candidate within voting distance of winning. Start with school boards & town councils.
I will vote for the part of the duopoly that supports women’s right to choose, works to ensure voting rights, promotes more livable cities, etc..
If you can’t tell the difference between the pro-fascism party and the Promote the General Welfare public policy wonk party, there’s something wrong with you.
Maybe you want someone like Ralph Nader, who told people to vote for Trump in 2016, or Putin-supported Jill Stein, who’ll spend public money on worthless recounts.
https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2017_51/1955941/170405-putin-flynn-dinner-jhc-1700.jpg
You can use ridiculous straw people. You can use dishonest ad hominems and accusations. You can use the same disgusting lies as the climate-denying delayalist lunatics on the far right.
I’ll still know the difference between the half of the corporate duopoly playing you for a sucker while both you and it deny the direness of the linked fascist/ecological crisis, resulting in that criminal organization proposing “solutions” that will solve nothing.
It’s been obvious as long as I’ve been alive that both halves of the duopoly were collaborating to keep the system of extractive, Wetiko-driven capitalism going as long as they could suck from it—no matter what. (Yes, this is about mothers and people who have never gotten beyond infancy, emotionally. It’s about people so taken by their addiction, rage, hatred, & nihilistic desire to destroy, and so unconscious about it that they constantly replay their abandonments and other wounds out in the present by trying to destroy everything.) It’s been obvious for at least 40 years that climate catastrophe was proceeding faster than either half was willing to act on, and accelerating.
“There are no non-radical solutions left.” Naomi Klein
The Republicans have held their ground in complete ungrounded insanity with astounding consistency. The Democrats, despite admitting climate change exists, have equally consistently utterly refused to take any of the steps necessary for effective climate action—then: a carbon price; now: declaring an emergency; packing the court; winning a supermajority by embracing progressive positions that are clearly needed anyway; acting when they have a majority instead of dithering until their center-right inaction costs them control of 1 to 3 houses, then wringing their hands about not being able to get anything done because the Republicans are stopping them; clearing the blocks and mandating 10 times the speed of fossil replacement by efficiency, wiser lives, and renewable energy, rail revitalization, high speed rail, EVs, organic permaculture…
The Democrats have been slowly ramping up their proposed actions, each only 20 or 30 years behind necessity, as if they want climate change to be catastrophic enough to eliminate most people on Earth, but just under the level that would eliminate them & their oligarchic allies. Or maybe they’re just “slow”, hanging onto everything they can as long as they can—power, privilege, position, wealth, ideology, belief in themselves and the exceptional US, LOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2HKbygLjJs
No doubt that’s all from a varying combination among the players, in any case they never catch up enough to realistically addressing the ever-worsening crisis. Because of the psychological system they have with the Republicans—intertwined impulse and inhibition contained in various parts of the system—Democrat’s policies will lead to catastrophe as surely as the Republicans’. As I’ve explained many times, the 2 halves of the party are different. The ultimate result of the policies of both, on fascism and climate, are the same: destruction of civilization and most life on Earth.
You want the oligarchic Democrats to administer you a morphine drip, then watch, while Republicans push you off a cliff. I want to stop them both.
Thank you for your opinion on this matter. I will take it under advisement.