Post Reply Vegetarian and 'healthy' diets are more harmful to the environment
16735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 12/15/15 , edited 12/15/15
Those vegetarians are wasting water and increasing global warming all to stuff themselves with low calorie foods!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151214130727.htm



"Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon," said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. "Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken."

However, eating the recommended "healthier" foods -- a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood -- increased the environmental impact in all three categories: Energy use went up by 38 percent, water use by 10 percent and GHG emissions by 6 percent.
Posted 12/15/15 , edited 12/15/15
Don't care, still delicious.


Edit: So you believe in anthropocentric global warming? I mean, does Greenhouse emissions really matter if you don't believe there's a problem in the first place?
9 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
United States Of...
Offline
Posted 12/15/15 , edited 12/15/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Don't care, still delicious.


Edit: So you believe in anthropocentric global warming? I mean, does Greenhouse emissions really matter if you don't believe there's a problem in the first place?


Yes, your beliefs are irrelevant to reality. You remind of the kids from Texas riding their huge trucks mommy and daddy paid for through the mud that used to be the lake their community depended on for water saying "I think they disproved global-warming."

As to the claims that vegetables are worse for global warming that meat production, I think is miss-founded. The study does not account for the methane produced by the live stock during their life time or the CO2 converted by the plants to O2. Then again, the information provided is limited and I'm not going to pay $30 to find out the entire result.

The fact of the matter is that beef or lettuce is not to blame for a current situation. Leave it to the small-minded to blame a cow or a head of lettuce. Rather it is our inability to control ourselves as a whole and our population. Due to our size and cultural habits the only answer is to reduce the size of our population. But, it's too late for that and any post like this poses no efficacy to the solution of the problem.

You should watch the original Ghost In The Shell, 1995.

And here I thought this was a forum for Anime.
16735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 12/15/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Don't care, still delicious.


Edit: So you believe in anthropocentric global warming? I mean, does Greenhouse emissions really matter if you don't believe there's a problem in the first place?


I believe in it in a sense but not the way scientists are pitching it. Ever notice how the center of a city can feel like it's in the 100's while if you stand in a forest next to the city can feel like your in the 70's? I think that effect is happening on a global scale and that green house gases are incorrectly being blamed as the sole cause of global warming. Heck try to think of a human activity that doesn't generate heat and you will notice we just keep producing more and more heat non-stop while paving over everything green with concrete and asphalt, which convert light into heat.

If you don't mind a warmer earth then it really doesn't matter. Heck look at all the ice age creatures that died off once the climate changed. It's happening again except some people blame humans exclusively for it despite history showing us that unadapable creatures typically die off during all of the climatic changes in earth's history.
33051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 12/15/15
Everything's bad for the environment... so many things that now I don't really care anymore. Weather it's real or not the world is going to the shits regardless.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/15/15 , edited 12/15/15
Let's first consider what was being looked at, why, and what was found. The researchers were interested in examining the environmental impact of USDA dietary recommendations in the context of the obesity epidemic. They compared the energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with production, transportation, and sale of food for three scenarios:

1. Reducing caloric intake without changing food mix
2. Switching food mix to USDA recommendations without changing caloric intake
3. Reducing caloric intake and switching food mix to USDA recommendations

The results indicated the following for each scenario:

1. An approximate decrease of 9% for energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions.
2. An increase in energy use of 43%, blue water footprint by 16%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 11%.
3. An increase in energy use of 38%, blue water footprint by 10%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 6%.

The results indicate that USDA recommendations for greater emphasis on seafood, fruits, vegetables, and dairy products, on a resource use per calorie basis, are associated with greater human environmental impact. They also indicate that, in addition to the health benefits reaped, people in the US eating less would result in a positive environmental impact.

This is, in other words, not an assessment of the environmental impact of vegetarianism. The USDA recommendations do not call for a strictly vegetarian diet, and the proportion of people on a strictly vegetarian diet in the United States is about 6%. Between vegetarian identification and vegan identification you can get that number up to 13%. Also, apparently people in the US prefer pancakes over waffles by an 11 point spread. Philistines.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-015-9577-y
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/02/food-issues-polarizing-america.html
9 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
United States Of...
Offline
Posted 12/15/15

BlueOni wrote:

Let's first consider what was being looked at, why, and what was found. The researchers were interested in examining the environmental impact of USDA dietary recommendations in the context of the obesity epidemic. They compared the energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with production, transportation, and sale of food for three scenarios:

1. Reducing caloric intake without changing food mix
2. Switching food mix to USDA recommendations without changing caloric intake
3. Reducing caloric intake and switching food mix to USDA recommendations

The results indicated the following for each scenario:

1. An approximate decrease of 9% for energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions.
2. An increase in energy use of 43%, blue water footprint by 16%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 11%.
3. An increase in energy use of 38%, blue water footprint by 10%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 6%.

The results indicate that USDA recommendations for greater emphasis on seafood, fruits, vegetables, and dairy products, on a resource use per calorie basis, are associated with greater human environmental impact. They also indicate that, in addition to the health benefits reaped, people in the US eating less would result in a positive environmental impact.

This is, in other words, not an assessment of the environmental impact of vegetarianism. The USDA recommendations do not call for a strictly vegetarian diet, and the proportion of people on a strictly vegetarian diet in the United States is about 6%. Between vegetarian identification and vegan identification you can get that number up to 13%. Also, apparently people in the US prefer pancakes over waffles by an 11 point spread. Philistines.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-015-9577-y
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/02/food-issues-polarizing-america.html


Damn, that's sexy.

But can we not agree that less people is equivalent to less waste?
4315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Arizona
Offline
Posted 12/15/15
Even if this wasn't the case chicken and pork are too strong of incentives to not be a vegetarian
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/15/15 , edited 12/15/15

Enroq wrote:

Damn, that's sexy.

But can we not agree that less people is equivalent to less waste?


That's one way to go about it. Certainly fewer consumers should translate into reduced resource use, and that in turn should reduce environmental impact provided they don't go all bonkers because of reasoning that they're not hurting anything because there's so few of them.

The methods section for the study in question is behind a pay wall, so I can't see it. Did they really not account for methane emissions? That would be a major limitation of the study.

Edit: Ah, you didn't go past the pay wall either. I missed that. Please excuse me.
You must be logged in to post.