255 grams per week. That’s the short answer to how much meat you can eat without harming the planet. And that only applies to poultry and pork.
Beef cannot be eaten in meaningful quantities without exceeding planetary boundaries, according to an article published by a group of DTU researchers in the journal Nature Food. So says Caroline H. Gebara, postdoc at DTU Sustain and lead author of the study."
Our calculations show that even moderate amounts of red meat in one’s diet are incompatible with what the planet can regenerate of resources based on the environmental factors we looked at in the study. However, there are many other diets—including ones with meat—that are both healthy and sustainable," she says.
I don’t like these kinds of articles because they always have an undertone of making it a matter of personal consumer choice as opposed to systemic change.
WRI published an interesting article on this subject a week or so ago:
https://www.wri.org/insights/climate-impact-behavior-shifts
Systemic pressure [e.g. voting / collective action] creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It’s a two-way street — bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them. When we adopt these behaviors, we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment.
WRI’s research quantifies the individual actions that matter most. While people worldwide tend to vastly overestimate the impact of some highly visible activities, such as recycling, our analysis reveals four significant changes that deliver meaningful emissions reductions.
I like the bikelane analogy, actually.
It shows clearly that (a) yes you do need activism (like Critical Mass) and a few crazy ones that will bike regardless of the adverse conditions, (b) political will to shift towards bikelanes, (c ) wider adoption but also sustained activism to build better bikelanes (not painted gutters on the side of stroads, but protected lanes, connected with transit).
We definitely do not lack (a), but (c ) FOLLOWS (b). If you want to go from “just the crazies” to “everyone and their 5 year old”, systemic change needs to be backed by very concrete top-down action.
Without very meaningful (b), telling people to change their eating habits while stuff is otherwise the same is like telling people to take their kids to school on bikes next to crazy SUV traffic: it’s not happening.
Except it is happening. And its not fucking dangerous to cook a pot of beans instead of dead birds lol
Good. But until it becomes as cheap and easy for a family of 4 to eat vegan as cheaply, completely and easily as it is to not, let’s not make finger wagging the political strategy for change. Nobody wants that.
Fortunately it’s always been cheaper to eat vegan. Typically 30% cheaper, on average.
true, but you have to learn to cook and try out a whole bunch of dishes from around the world. you don’t get to just go to mcdonald’s anymore you gotta take it into your own hands
Sure, but you’re not factoring in the cost of time spent learning how and the time spent preparing. I can afford that time, not everyone can. Again: the issue is systemic, not about personal smarts or purity. Ask the simple question: what is the cultural default and what do you have to go out of your way to get. What is easy for regular people? For example: in India, even the language used is indicative: veg vs non-veg. Veg is well supported with cultural practices, abundant and easily and conveniently accessible yummy veg food. In North America, it’s literally the opposite.
That’s why I like the cycling analogy. The Dutch are not better people, they just have infrastructure that encourages cycling. The easy, the default.
Do you really think that beans, broccoli, lentils and all the vegetables, fruits, legumes… are more expensive than meat? Don’t forget that meat also has subsidies to lower the final price, so you are also paying in taxes this “cheap” meat.
Systemic change doesn’t happen without political will. Political will depends on personal opinions. Try to bring in systemic change with an election win but not overwhelming support then you get reactionary backlash like we’re seeing right now.
Which is why I think it’s better to start with some kind of populist attack on the excesses of the super rich. How many beef burgers was Katy Perry’s publicity stunt in low orbit?
But you don’t really have an advantage there. The super rich have a populist army of their own (maga) and they’re going all out with it in an attempt to destroy the left by attacking its foundation: academia.
If we simply stopped subsidizing meat consumption entirely the rising cost would shift more people to plant based diets.
Nope, the government would get replaced at the next election, though.
But it has to be both if only because somebody has to show the way. Governments are not going to clamp down on meat ag when the whole electorate is cheerfully eating meat.
Personally I see the argument “I can’t do anything, it’s about the system!” as a extremely convenient cop-out. Any system is made up of individuals.
And all ills in the current world are the result of a very small set of people. A small group of people has been pushing meat eating like crazy.a small set of people placed tiny taxes on meat.
A tiny percent of people are the reason why shipping is so big and so polluting. I can’t change that, nobody can change that, except a tiny amount of people.
A tiny percentage of people are the reason why we have such differences in wealth in society.
It’s a tiny amount of people that are the push behind all wars
I could go on for a while but blaming the common people for the world’s ills is disingenuous from my perspective.
You want everyone to eat less meat? Start taxing meat properly. That requires politicians to do their jobs: make decisions that will make the world better for everyone, instead of making decisions that will make him or her get elected again.
Most politicians are lazy and or think people are stupid. People would understand meat being more expensive if explanations of why would be clearly posted everywhere and alternatives would become cheaper and more abundant.
Then again, we now live in a world where all idiots have a bigger megaphone than any scientist ever had. That too should change. I’m aorry, fuck your free speech, not everybody should be allowed to have a megaphone and talk about stuff, but that is a slightly different subject. Either way, that too could be solved by a tibt sliver of people
The gulf between your worldview and mine is so wide as to make a productive discussion impossible. Unfortunately.
That says more about you than me.
Personally I see the argument “I can’t do anything, it’s about the system!” as a extremely convenient cop-out. Any system is made up of individuals.
I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. If you look at the history of regulating substances or practices deemed harmful to the public, it’s almost always led by governmental oversight. We knew asbestos was harmful way before it was regulated, but that didn’t stop corporations from utilizing it in everything.
The whole point of federal governments is to moderate corporations at the systemic level. Corporations know they can win the fight against individual responsibility, but they’re terrified of regulation.
We’ve already done this with the environment once before. The creation of the EPA popularized the push for clean air and water at a national level. Prior to the regulatory action there were of course people worried about pollution, but nothing really came of it until there was a regulatory body put in place.
Yes yes, I understand all that. It remains that people are using the systems argument as an excuse not to change their own lives. I’ve seen this in action and so have you. No democratic system is going to change when citizens are not lifting a finger individually.
There’s a legitimate argument to be had about the hypothesis where voters continue not to lift a finger but vote for green parties that promise to force them to. But that scenario seems to me too absurdly hypocritical and schizophrenic to be worth considering.
Of course it’s necessary to change the system, but that’s never going to happen until a critical mass of individuals put their actions where their mouths are.
remains that people are using the systems argument as an excuse not to change their own lives
I mean everyone including you does that to some level, otherwise we’d all be eco-terrorists. The small sacrifices you or I make are virtually meaningless, and are really just ways to make ourselves feel better. If you or I really put all our eggs in the basket of individual impact then we’d be blowing up oil wells. But we don’t, because we want to be comfortable just like the people “not lifting a finger”.
No democratic system is going to change when citizens are not lifting a finger individually.
I would say that we don’t really live in a democratic society… More systemic change in America is driven by the will of a few powerful individuals than the voting majority.
There’s a legitimate argument to be had about the hypothesis where voters continue not to lift a finger
How do you quantify lifting a finger? To reach a “critical mass” we’d still have to enact systemic change for items like education and economic safety nets. People aren’t going to “lift a finger” for something like meat consumption when they are living paycheck to paycheck in a food desert where most of their calories are coming from premade food from convenient stores.
The small sacrifices you or I make are virtually meaningless, and are really just ways to make ourselves feel better.
Or simply to act to with moral coherence and avoid unnecessary cognitive dissonance. So that’s one difference between our attitudes.
If you or I really put all our eggs in the basket of individual impact then we’d be blowing up oil wells.
That would IMO be a negative impact. Ecoterrorism does not work. Wrong ethically, and counterprodutive. So that’s a second difference.
These are questions of deep philosophy, not simply judgements based on facts. You don’t see things as I see them, and vice versa. In a pluralistic society that should be manageable.
I would say that we don’t really live in a democratic society
Hence this third difference. The very fact that we can express disagreements like this and not be arrested is proof of something. The fact that our politicians are useless or malevolent is because we are those things. No societies in human history have been as free and democratic as the modern West. Things were (much) worse before, and soon they’re going to get much worse again.
Anyway. An unbridgeable gulf. Others can decide which of us, if either, is “right”.
Or simply to act to with moral coherence and avoid unnecessary cognitive dissonance.
Which is a way to make ourselves feel better… I don’t eat meat because of my morals, but I don’t think for a second that its meaningful on a societal scale, or makes me somehow morally superior to those who do.
That would IMO be a negative impact. Ecoterrorism does not work. Wrong ethically, and counterprodutive. So that’s a second difference.
But if we reach a critical mass of people who do think eco-terrorism is good then we would stop climate change… If you’re not willing to lift a finger for the environment how do you expect anyone else to?
Eco-terrorism can only be a negative impact because of the social mores it clashes with, which will never change if voters don’t really care about the environment. As far as ethics goes, that’s really a matter of perspective. Is it really morally troubling to destroy property than it it is to let that property destroy entire ecologies?
Btw, im not actually advocating for eco-terrorism, I’m just utilizing your logic to make a point. We all could be devoting our entire lives to push society to be more green, but we are human. And part of being human is wanting to be comfortable and live within our social norms. No amount of personal responsibility is really going to make a difference at a scale that really matters unless we are already in a position in that society to do so.
The very fact that we can express disagreements like this and not be arrested is proof of something.
Two unimportant people discussing mundane topics without being arrested has been fairly standard in just about every society in human history.
The fact that our politicians are useless or malevolent is because we are those things.
Eh… I tend to believe that power corrupts and that the corrupt seek power over people. I would hope that you or I are both more morally upstanding people than the people in charge of our society.
No societies in human history have been as free and democratic as the modern West. Things were (much) worse before, and soon they’re going to get much worse again.
Lol, that’s just incredibly naive. There is a higher percentage of people in prison today than ever before. I’m not arguing that there haven’t been times and places where it’s worse to be alive…but it’s simply impossible to accurately claim that the modern west most “free” society that’s ever been created. Freedom means different things to different people at different times, as does modernity.
Anyway. An unbridgeable gulf. Others can decide which of us, if either, is “right”.
Lol, it’s only unbridgeable because you refuse to participate in discourse. This isn’t a right or wrong type of conversation, the whole point of communicating in an open forum is to learn. Nobody cares about the opinions of two schmucks talking about ethical consumption on the Internet.
Oh boy, the red meaters are going to downvote the shit out of this.
Meh. I wouldn’t eat chicken these days either. You should see how it’s made. Corporate farming is abhorrent.
I’m kinda in this camp as well. Barely eat any meat and the meat I do buy is from small local producers where I can meet (hihi) and greet the animals.
How does that work? Do you never eat meat when you go out?
There aren’t a ton of places in the world with a good supply of vegetarian/vegan food AND enough of an ag industry you can go around petting your meat.
A majority of restaurants where I live offer at least one vegetarian option on their menu, and commonly also a vegan option (they might be the same)
Going out I have lots of vegan options so that isn’t an issue generally. And am not rigid in my principles, being a bit moderate makes me less of an obnoxious cunt. Easier to cook for, take along on outings etc.
If I hold hard on any principle it is that to not let perfect stand in the way of good. Being able to do 90% ethical consumption I find to be much better than failing to be 100% pure.
being a bit moderate makes me less of an obnoxious cunt
Dafuq?
So when you buy meat you try to buy local. but when you are not being an obnoxious cunt outside you just eat any old meat?
Just like everyone else on the Internet when the topic of animal ethics comes up.
i literally only have meat on special occasions because of this, the entire meat industry is horrible for animals, for your health (red meat) and for the environment.
nothing helps me enjoy a truly special occasion like a little cruelty, violence, atrocity, and self-harm.
what are you going to do, I’m not immune to social pressure, still a step in the right direction if you ask me
You’ll eat beef but not chickens? You consider cows to be treated differently to how chickens are treated?
Yes, not good, but better. I’ve worked in industrial chicken and been fairly close to industrial beef, industrial cows are treated mildly better because it is literally impossible for a cow to survive in the conditions chickens are kept in.
Also, their comment said that they wouldn’t eat chicken either, not that they wouldn’t eat chicken but would eat beef.
industrial cows are treated mildly better because it is literally impossible for a cow to survive in the conditions chickens are kept in
You seem to be talking about material conditions. What concerns me more are the psychological conditions and I don’t believe there to be any difference in that respect.
Do you believe that the beef which enters a person’s body will be in some way less harmful, all else being equal, than chicken? Solely because of the absolute difference in the material conditions?
No, but the beef which enters a person’s body won’t be harmful to them (the person) at all.
I may be misunderstanding you. Are you talking about the harm caused in its production? As in pound for pound the harm caused by the production process? Because I would like to emphasize that I don’t think beef production is less harmful, the additional harm caused to the planet in industrial grade beef far outweighs the difference in animal welfare. It seems slightly weird to me to talk about the meat itself being harmful as it enters the person’s body when the harm is in the production.
I also don’t understand what you mean by separating “material” vs “psychological” conditions. If you’re talking about the psychological state the animals are in while they are alive, as far as I know, the statement stands, industrial cattle live slightly better lives (more space and such,) which results as far as I know, in a better psychological state*.
That’s not to say that beef is ok while chicken is not, if chicken is off the table for you, beef definitely should be as well.
*Though it is now occurring to me that comparing the psychological states of chickens and cows may not be an activity with a point.
the beef which enters a person’s body won’t be harmful to them (the person) at all
I differ completely.
If you’re talking about the psychological state the animals are in while they are alive
Well there’s no psychological state when they’re dead :-)
more space and such,) which results as far as I know, in a better psychological state
Cows having more absolute space than chickens doesn’t imply that cows will have a better psychological state. What matters is how much space the animals have relative to how much space the animals need. I would expect farms to give animals precisely as little space as the farm can get away with, meaning the degree of suffering will be exactly at the point of maximum suffering while still surviving, for cows and chickens.
Regardless, I think there’s likely more harm to meat eaters due to the psychological impact of being slaughtered.
Generally, there’s no data on these issues so it’s all just opinion either way. Suffice it to say that to me, your position seems naive.
Ok, I’m going to leave the rest of this alone, because as you said, it seems like mostly opinion either way, but still don’t understand how you think meat eaters are being harmed by the poor psychological state of the animals while they were alive.
Those of us in the USA should be asking if we think meat will be safe now that many regulations have been removed.
It won’t. But neither will anything.
They’ve gotta check with best friend’s cousins former roommate who runs a “sustainable” slaughter house where they “exclusively” (once a year) source their meat.
This has been my rule of thumb for a while. It should be clear as day that 9 billion people cannot all chow on hefty ruminant mammals. We would run out of land even before it cooked the climate.
The problem with chicken farming is the cruelty.
If you’re only eating two breasts a week, people can spring for the free range stuff
No, its also the environmental impact. We passed 350 ppm.
The article is nonsense because it must be zero. We’re already in a positive feedback loop. We have to reduce all emissions to zero to mitigate as much as possible. There is no amount of emissions that are acceptable.
Yes but that logic changes the goalposts a bit. The question of how to undo existing damage, or what we should do ethically, is not the same as the question of what is theoretically sustainable.
The article barely touches on fish. It suggests fish, eggs, and dairy are mostly fine, but doesn’t explicitly say that.
Dairy has the same problems as beef. Remember, you also have to grow food to feed the food, so it’s inherently a net loss of calories.
And on the animal ethics side dairy is often considered worse - forced endless cycle of birth and separation of mothers from their calves, most calves slaughtered. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows just because you aren’t eating the corpses.
The most important part: what went into the calculation? There are plenty of things besides food that impact environmental sustainability, is diet alone sufficient to achieve it? Or did they just throw the rest out?
Has any society in human history been able to afford eating meat regularly? My great great great great grandfather’s journals talk about a lot of stew and veggies and he was wealthy enough that he founded a small city. We never ate that much meat.
Yes, Inuit for example have a diet largely based on fish and meat. Steppe herders like mongols are another example of a culture with regular meat consumption.
Medieval Barcelona had a higher meat consumption than today. The article also gives other examples of high meat consumption from medieval England and Vikings.
Typically we don’t need to eat meat when we are wealthy; we eat unsustainable meat when there is a famine because we must.
It’s more that they aren’t killing a cow that produces milk
Cows don’t just produce milk like chickens lay eggs.
I know. If your cow can birth calves and produce milk you aren’t going to kill it just yet.
Subsidies and very, very cruel industrialization (torturous conditions).
If laws were just and corporate socialism was just, it wouldn’t be possible for most people.
Well, beef is already so damn expensive that I can’t remember the last time we bought it.
Meat-wise It’s just been a steady cycle of chicken, turkey, and pork at our house
I had no idea we were so environmentally avant-garde
You’re not avantgarde. Veganism is a thing.
Good on you!
When my wife and I started being conscious about our food intake, it wasn’t too bad to give up red meat, and shrink meat portions / add veggies.
It took us months of learning / trying new recipes to actually get to the point where we were consistently eating fewer than 14 meat-centric meals a week (lunch/dinner). Once we got comfortable cooking plant based dishes though, we had built up so much momentum that we went from 1 or 2 plant based meals a week to 100% in just a few weeks.
It takes a long time to build up that comfort level, but at some point a switch just flips and the new “normal” is just as easy as what you were used to.
We’ve cut way back on meat as well, though part of it for me honestly was the environmental impact. The only time we have beef is on special occasions and not at home (so a couple of times a year). Our main proteins are chicken (domestic), seafood, pork (split between domestic and Canadian depending upon what’s available), and tofu in probably roughly that order. We have other sources of protein as well, but I think of those as the “mains” as it were.
What about people that don’t eat pork?
I guess you can have 255 grams of poultry
Or veggies. Veggies are always nice.
#FreeTheRedMeat
Dry ass nasty chicken breast. I’d rather some veggies, but it this allows BP to keep pumping oil into the Gulf then I guess it’s fine.
Can we please get moving on the lab grown meats already. This shit is getting depressing.
Vegetables aren’t so scary, are they?
I’ve moved to eating more non-meat than meat and skipping beef at home when I do, but I have never been able to fully convert. I was a pescatarian for almost 1.5 years in my youth and that was mostly doable, but still very tough and never really got easier.
A number of the existing alternatives involve gluten which I can’t have anymore (I rather liked seitan when I had it).
I currently have a vegetable farm and, for as much of the year as I can, eat what I grow outside for veg so they’re certainly not scary.
Not “scary”. There’s just never enough of them to fill the void inside me.
That’s psychological, the important things for fullness are fat, protein, and fiber. You can get all of those through vegetables, but it’s easy to convince your brain you’re not full. I don’t automatically feel full if I don’t eat hot food, so I have to be a little aware of it on super hot days. But it’s easy enough to tally up what I’ve actually eaten vs what exercise I’ve done and that helps my body realize that it is sated.
Eat beans and starch!!
Just buy beans.
Stop pointing the finger at anyone but yourself.
I wish I could ‘just buy beans’. I love beans, but beans don’t love me. One serving sees the skin on my palms cracking and bleeding. Several in a week and I’m a goddamned crusty walking rash all over. Sucks, bigtime.
That’s awful! I hope one day your situation improves. That sounds so difficult. (Bc this is the internet, have to clarify: not sarcastic!)
We really don’t need lab grown stuff when the meat alternatives on the market now are already so good
If you haven’t tried any yet, I highly recommend Impossible meat, it’s virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Quorn is another great option.
And on a budget, Seitan is also fantastic.
I have to disagree with this. Personally, I think every chicken alternative I have tried has been bad, and more expensive. I certainly havent tried everything, but I try what I see readily available to me.
Chicken is the easiest to make (from wheat flour).
Honestly I think the meat alternatives are pretty terrible compromises to the real thing. We should be cooking to enhance the veggies flavor instead of trying to force them to be meat.
Honestly, just buy rice and beans and veggies. That plastic wraped stuff is dumb.
I would not have been able to convert my family to become vegetarians without the help of plant meats, as it allows them to continue cooking all their favorite recipes from childhood onward that are meat based, which is incredibly important to them.
I think you underestimate how useful of a tool plant meats are in converting people. In my experience it is far easier for people to switch to a plant meat than it is to convince them to abandon a significant portion of the diet they grew up with, especially if their recipes are deep rooted and cultural.
It’s something I’m extremely grateful to have in my tool belt. And in the case of Quorn, it’s not even a highly processed thing, it’s just a high protein, low carb fungus that they found naturally grew into a meaty texture, and easily absorbs vegan stocks to taste like anything.
Also @Syd@lemm.ee and @Zizzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
What is wrong with beans?? You’re never going to get lab meat as good as beans in your lifetime. It’s a designer product for large children who are terrified of changing their diet.
I disagree. I imagine a future where the meat industry consists of luxury ranches, where prized specimen livestock are allowed to roam freely, grazing on the best grains all day, and attended by dutiful handlers at the ready to facilitate their every comfort. Each one, allowed to grow old and die naturally, never knowing fear or hardship.
All that’s required of them is the occasional tissue sample in order to keep cloning stocks up to date and viable.
Meanwhile, off in a separate facility, its meat is being mass produced to feed millions. Everyone wins.
It’s funny to think that you need communism for this kind of figure to mean anything.
Let’s be honest about how unrealistic it is to expect people to voluntarily adhere to this. We need large scale lab meat asap
What if I told you we already have beans…
What if I told you beans don’t taste like pork ribs? I love beans, but these things are not substitutes for one another, and insisting they are isn’t going to make anyone become vegan.
Beans are definitely a better substitute for rotting, tortured animal flesh.
I’m not talking about forward thinking rational people like us. I’m talking about selfish everypersons that want to barbeque on the weekends and watch football eating chicken wings. We need to give them sensible substitutes or they won’t change.
BBQs are easy
Here’s a tomato, mushroom, bell pepper, onion, 10 Cobb’s of corn, and a stack of black bean burgers.
Done.
Look I know your heart is in the right place, but there are a lot of people that straight up won’t touch vegan substitutes unless other options are unavailable. And even then they might just leave the barbeque or eat chips if there’s no burgers/brats.
I just gave you a pile of burgers.
Non vegans eat vegan food all the time. Jusy don’t tell them the chips and the salsa are vegan.
did they already publish an article beforehand on how many eggs are sustainable?
or have they solved the age-old riddle?
The answer is zero
Edit: yeah, pointless as always trying to have a discussion with vegans. 😐
Veggie - not “mains”, not complex enough
Plant based meats - too complex
IDK, but it sounds like you haven’t really tried the full spectrum of offerings from plants. It’s not just beyond meat and celery out there - There’s a whole spectrum of flavors and if you want more, but not the full punch of a plant based meat, maybe try incorporating more variety into your plate
Have you tried carrots? They taste like carrots.
And beans, they taste like beans.
Meanwhile, carnivore diet retards exist.
