Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.

https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption

Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-beef-industry-fueling-amazon-rainforest-destruction-deforestation/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-06-02/almost-a-billion-trees-felled-to-feed-appetite-for-brazilian-beef

If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌

Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

  • LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world
    181·
    4 days ago

    I wouldn’t call this “detailing the problems.” You wrote a few paragraphs and possibly listed a few.

    How much of cattle feed is cottonseed? In the US only or worldwide? What are alternatives? Would they be better or worse?

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      79·
      4 days ago

      poore-nemecek is conducting scientific malpractice by combining LCA studies as they have. the problem with behrens, admittedly, is more of a feeling of misgiving, and I don’t know if there is any study that properly accounts for reclaimed agricultural water, or of that’s even a reasonable thing to do when your end product is a simple statistic like land use, water use, or ghge.

      I think the best thing to do is probably look at inefficiencies in any specific operation and help them improve, but that doesn’t give simplistic answers like telling 8 billion people to eat more or less of something.

      • LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world
        131·
        4 days ago

        For someone who seems so righteous and careful about saying the right thing, I think it’s funny you end with “telling 8 billion people to eat more or less of something” when that’s an obvious exaggeration on your part. Global meat consumption is highly skewed. For example, apparently, the US consumes 21% of the world’s meat (world population review, which cites FAO, 2010) yet accounts for about 4% of the world population.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          310·
          4 days ago

          I’m advocating for a method to actually improve outcomes, and, yes, lampooning the simplistic answers offered here. but if the answers are more complex, there is not any nuance or further explanation offered here. the data gathering and analysis methods offered are flawed, and it doesn’t take a degree in statistics or environmental science to understand this.

          you’ve latched onto one glib comment I’ve made while glossing over the real methodological missteps.

          • LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world
            111·
            4 days ago

            It’s a “glib comment” you’re making to further discredit the study. I could be wrong but I don’t think you’ve posted any actual studies that talk about what’s wrong with the Poore Nemecek article. It was published in 2018 so there should be plenty.

            Instead, you say you “detailed” what’s wrong with the study when you, at best, gave a short overview. Then you made exaggerations to further discredit the study. You also say the study is so bad “it doesn’t take a degree in statistics or environmental science” to understand why it’s so bad.

            You could very well be right but I just see someone puffing up their chest and not actually using intellectual methods to convey their point of view while expertly pretending to be doing that.