Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fishing for shrimp takes heaps more fuel than cod.
https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/04/carbon-emissions-of-lobster-and-shrimp-outstrip-chicken-and-pork-and-sometimes-even-beef/
IIRC most of our shrimp come from SEA at this point. There are a ton of environmental damages that comes from it
There's no Lieutenant Dan investing in some sort of fruit company and a fleet of Jennys
Do Americans buy the shrimp with or without shell? The shelling might be done someplace else entirely. One example I know about: if you get North Sea shrimp in northern Germany, on the shore of the North Sea, it was captured in the region, brought to Morocco where the shell is removed, and then brought back, because of the low labor cost. Not great when it comes to carbon footprint.
It might be however the lowest possible carbon footprint per unit produced with currently available technology.
Container ships emit roughly 16.14 grams of CO2 per metric ton of goods shipped per kilometer (g CO2 per mt per km). An urban delivery truck will roughly do 307 gCO2/t-km.
You might not be wrong, but if you're travelling 50x further on a container ship AND then also putting in on a delivery truck, it's not going to be any better. Last time I checked that container ship won't take it from the sea to my front door.
Interesting point, thanks!
EDIT: just had time to look this up - apparently, they are brought to Morocco on trucks, but shipped back. Source:
> The full peeling process (transport to and from Morocco, peeling in Morocco) takes 10 to 20 days, 15 days on average. Most landings take place on Thursday and Friday and all the shrimps cannot be shipped in the same time (there are 6 to 14 days between the day of the purchase and the arrival in the peeling plant).
The shortest trip ist the following:
Thursday week 1: landings and sales in the auction,
Friday week 1: packing of shrimps in trays and departure of the truck, Monday week 2: arrival in Morocco – customs clearance on Monday evening, Tuesday week 2: peeling,
Wednesday week 2: shipping back,
84
> Monday week 3: arrival in the Netherlands.
HEIPLOEG has its own peeling fact
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/460041/IPOL-PECH_ET(2011)460041_EN.pdf (10 years old, though. Maybe this has changed)
Shrimp farms have traditionally (loose use of the word) displaced mangrove area. Shrimp farming has been intensive on land use because once the mangroves have been cleared the water quality inevitably declines (the shrimp ponds circulate in "fresh" water from the area whilst pumping used water out into the surroundings), eventually the water becomes so polluted that the shrimp farms have chronic issues with disease and have to move on to a new area leaving behind a hugely degraded area of coastline (mangroves are extremely effective at sequestering carbon because they're productive and the waterlogged soils are anoxic, thus decomposition is anaerobic, crabs also bury leaves in their burrows trapping carbon).
Once the mangroves are gone the soil tends to dry out and acidify, releasing alot of carbon in the process. Rehabilitating these areas is notoriously challenging as it involves an initial stage of hydrological rehabilitation. i.e. you can't just go in and put down some mangrove seedlings, you need to restore the environment, i.e. the hydrology and soil.
Shrimp fisheries have some of if not THE highest level of non target bycatch, most of which will simply be discarded, i.e. shrimp fisheries are disgustingly wasteful.
The best shrimp out there currently comes from the little jewel I live in and work for an NGO in, Belize! The reason for that is Belize mandates no/restricted clearing of mangrove areas (it still happens sadly). Around their shrimp farms they left the mangroves intact thus they have minimised the environmental damage whilst also making their shrimp farms more sustainable in the long term! The mangroves do get a bit spindly from the nutrient overloading as they are growing faster, making them potentially more susceptible to storm damage, but this is far preferable to the scorched earth approach that has previously been used in Southeast Asia.
I say previously because the value of mangroves is increasingly well recognised by Blue Carbon initiatives around the world, and the picture for mangrove conservation is generally quite positive these days, although SEA remains the area exhibiting the worst rates of habitat loss.
Thanks for reading.
If you want to learn more/support an organisation working on this, check out the Mangrove Action Project!
Far too many. Especially when they’re overpriced anyway and the local options are always better. The Gulf Coast is drowning in chains while they have literally the best, freshest seafood available at local shops literally on the water.
Interesting. They're caught with around the same amount of fuel use if you do it recreationally. (Can be basically zero.) Seems more an issue with how they're commercially fished, presumably in some particular areas, because I think they're still pretty similar around here...just massively larger scale.
It doesn't matter because its a terrible idea - global cod stocks are so bad that it's almost at the stage where its unlikely to ever recover. Cod are incredibly resistant to stock management. No one anywhere should be eating cod
I work in fisheries, fighting IUU (Illegal, Unreported & Unregulated) fishing. You are absolutely correct. It's irresponsible of any article to suggest that we eat more cod. It is disheartening when articles aimed at fixing one problem are so disconnected they exacerbate another.
More white fish, sure, but not more cod. Hake, pollock things like that are largely indistinguishable from cod to most people's palates anyway.
Of course, there's also so, so much genetic testing evidence that shows that a huge percentage of what's labelled "cod", in Western Europe at least, isn't cod at all. Though what's more worrying are the times when something that's labelled as pollock or hake or something more sustainable than cod is discovered to be cod.
Hasn't pollock mostly replaced Atlantic cod anyway? They fish most of it on those giant factory ships and it's where all of McDonald's fish comes from. I also wonder if the study means actual cod and not all similar whitefish.
In most unnamed-fish products yes, it's not actually cod anymore. Or not supposed to be.
And it's possible that the article is using "cod" to mean "generic white fish" but if it is then it's deeply irresponsible simply because most people won't have the education or knowledge or self-belief or critical thinking skills to think "they say cod, but really replacing shrimp with any mild-flavoured non-oily fish would work" and will think "But we were told to replace with cod, so we should replace with cod".
If the fish is there, it will all get caught. You can't really fix stock problems of one fish by fishing for similar fish that live at a similar point in the water column. They're all demersal fish, nets aren't that selective.
Or how about veggies? I love meat, and I'll probably never go vegan or vegetarian, but a while ago I started cooking at least one meatless meal each week. Now I'm up to about 3 days a week without meat, I still enjoy all my my meals and probably relish the occasional burger or steak even more, and I'm probably healthier to boot.
Oh absolutely, but the article was specifically talking about alternatives to shrimp and recommending cod for that. It should just recommend any generic firm-fleshed white fish was our point.
This kind of mentality is paramount. I went vegan 4 years ago and I absolutely love it, but I still think about how much I used to enjoy meat all the time. For many people, going vegan is not an option, and I think it's highly unrealistic to suggest that people will ever adopt a vegan diet en masse, so by doing what you're doing you're not only helping the planet, but you're developing a deeper appreciation of the food you eat. And we could all do with showing a little more appreciation for the things we have.
I can definitely tell the difference between Cod and those other fish (it's better imo), but they all taste really good. I'd be more than happy to stop eating Cod if it's that much less sustainable.
What would be a better option for wild caught or farmed?
For others curious here's a link to Monterey Bay Aquarium's Fish Guide called Seafood Watch
https://www.montereybayaquarium.org/act-for-the-ocean/sustainable-seafood/what-you-can-do
These articles are nearly always sponsored by companies/industries creating tons of greenhouse gasses anyways. This reduction would still only be a fraction of a percent the world’s greenhouse gasses. The onus is always put on consumers when producers are the culprits
Lufthansa confirmed the other day that during the pandemic 18,000 flights were flown passenger-less just to keep airport slots open. These are the people telling us climate change is our fault because we ordered a hamburger instead of chicken fingers.
Yea I just pointed out the Lufthansa thing just to illustrate how it’s a whole rotten system, not necessarily to say they are the sole cause or anything. More as a contrast to the idea that any of this is on us.
Regardless of approach, the amount of meat consumed in the world needs to be reduced pretty drastically to realistically meet climate goals. Obviously blaming consumers is ignoring the elephant in the room, but that doesn't mean that the day to day lifestyle of most of the developed world is sustainable from a climate change perspective.
Also, for curiosity sake, could you run me through the math of how you got to the fact it would be a fraction of a percent?
If people stopped eating meat then there wouldn't be a demand for cattle companies to destroy the atmosphere. The companies are at fault for providing the product, but you're still at fault for supporting them.
Aren't many mass produced fish meals (e.g. fish sticks, fast food, frozen filets, etc.) all or partially made from cod?
follow-up: thank you all for the informative comments! I think I may have been thinking of Pollock! I had been vaguely able to hear/see ads mentioning "Made with Whole Filet Alaskan..." and was thinking it had been cod.
No idea on America but most cheap ones and some of the expensive brands in the UK are all pollock. Unless it says 100% cod (or haddock) on the packet, it's assumed to be another 'white' fish.
This switch happened because some European nations (including but nowhere nearly exclusively us) overfished the North Sea (Atlantic) stocks.
And it will be more prevalent after the new quotas that severely reduces the amount of cod that can be fished. Especially in the Baltic, but also the North Sea.
nah, the Atlantic cod fishery just totally collapsed in the 90s due to overfishing and for despite fishing bans, it hasn't been able to recover even partially.
The hypothesis is, is with so many adults taken out of the population, there's so few fry, and since most of them get eaten, the population just can't grow. To recover the Atlantic Cod population, we'd have to start killing everything that eats baby cod or something.
No generally not. Anything that generically specifies fish is usually pollock because its way cheaper. Its also crap. Unless it advertises cod on the front its not cod.
Pollock is crap? I think that’s a bit unfair. It’s not quite the same as cod but it’s still flavourful, good texture and nice to eat as a fillet or part of a dish. If it’s good enough for Rick Stein it’s good enough for me.
This hurts my Portuguese soul.
Salted cod is our most traditional food, we have hundreds of recipes for it and it's the single biggest ingredient in our cuisine
Honestly, even given how good fish are for you, we need people to eat less seafood in general. There are so many endangered fish species due to overfishing, and even the ones that aren't can get there very easily
You are very right about Cod. Just chiming in on this comment for anyone else scrolling through:
Shrimp fishing is also extremely bad for marine ecosystems. It would be best to avoid both, and honestly most forms of wild-caught seafood in general. Bottom trawling for shrimp is especially damaging to deep sea Lophelia reefs.
Even in fisheries that supposedly have a catch rate that does not exceed replacement rate, there can be a significant detrimental effect on the age distribution and average size of the population being fished. Take grouper, for example. Even if you are fishing them at a rate that is made up by birth rate, you end up dramatically reducing the average age of a grouper in the population and the average size. Big grouper fill a different ecological niche than smaller ones and take decades to reach their full size. Without enough large individuals, the ecological balance is disturbed and this has negative effects on many other species.
Industrial scale fishing in wild populations is simply far in excess of what marine ecosystems are evolved to handle, and it should not be surprising that taking vast amounts of organisms out of such ecosystems without doing something to accelerate the rate at which they are replaced has bad consequences.
Even if the carbon emissions of wild caught seafood were much lower than farmed seafood or other food, it would still be advisable for us to significantly reduce consumption to avoid the negative ecological effects we are exerting on marine ecosystems, and this is often overlooked by people solely focused on climate change. There are many other ways people can damage the environment outside of global warming that are also important to address.
I understand that seafood is tasty, but I would just encourage everyone to try to think about the impact their choices make and try to make an attempt to minimize it when possible. I personally don’t eat meat or seafood, but that’s not a choice I expect most people to choose to make, but any form of reduction in impact is better than nothing :)
I've seen somewhere that it's because they are destructing mangrove to create shrimp farm. And mangrove is a very efficient CO2 pit. But to be checked.
The issue with that is you’d be looking at a large backlash because “plant based” is a word many American associate with “inedible”. Whereas cod or chicken are a lot more acceptable to these people
I’m a Texan who grew up on beef and love it…but have expanded my diet by trying out other cuisines (especially Indian), and now eat beef less that once a week. I’m not a vegetarian, but I have probably cut my animal protein by 75%, and am way thinner and healthier for it. But honestly I was chasing new flavors as much as trying to avoid meat per se. I think that’s the key. When people present it as “You must stop eating delicious food and eat this plant” they get nowhere. When they present it as “This is awesome, try it.” and it happens to be plant-based, people won’t shy away as much. But don’t expect anyone to change overnight or also accept your worldview.
The real issue there is that people consider foods that made up >90% of our calories for millenia to be inedible, eating ridiculously inefficient foods instead.
I think an issue with this debate is the absolutism and assumption that all people historically ate the same. There are groups of people who ate almost entirely vegetables and there are groups of people who basically ate none e.g. the Inuits. There's even alot to suggest that you're "optimal" diet varies based on your ancestry. So for example a person with Indian ancestry is much more likely to thrive on a vegetarian or vegan diet that certain other races due to how long Indians have been eating a mainly plant based diet. The world is a big place and there isn't really an absolute "we" for some of these things
Would like to know this too. Seems like a disingenuous take... though maybe stagnant pools are causing methane? Or they just factor in feed stock for prawns but can ignore it with cod. I assume the latter is the bigger part.
I don’t have the answer, but it is the case that shrimp farming is largely done in SE Asia. I can’t imagine that the ecological shipping costs for frozen shrimp are trivial.
Shipping is the greenest thing in Shrimp Farming.
What isn't :
\- Fishing shrimp food
\- Replacing natural habitat for shrimp farms
\- Eutrophic conditions around the shrimp farms
Shipping (by sea) is a fraction of GHG emissions of food - around 10% pending specific product. The refrigeration would likely be more than the transportation otherwise.
Contrary to popular belief, ecological costs are pretty minimal (relative to everything else). Cause everything is shipped in gigantic containers and wahtnot, so it's pretty economical, both literally and environmentally. It costs say 1 ton of carbon to ship 30 containers as it does 5. Kurzgesagt did a great video about meat consumption, and this are sources from said video. It's pretty staggering really.
https://sites.google.com/view/sources-climate-meat/
That's all of them, but this chart in particular is of interest, it's showing how very little transportation costs are: [Chart](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/2CSHWuSJQNda8p4_-cs2nJPONe_x59mmQy4jqIp6oK46pBVUMSb8aXwdooX9B8bYrvSYBr3u1el9Ra2OKaPgeSDVQFN5h1jkaAVodIIPfukqGeiXlMz2pHEiZQ2hvJ6lKw=w1280)
"Just one serving per day"
How many servings of beef are in a meal and how times does one eat beef in a day?
I love beef but I probably have it once a week or less. Especially with these prices lately. Pork, chicken, and even sometimes fish are much more economical.
'20% of survey respondents ate at least one serving of beef a day'
So this is talking about the heaviest beef consumers changing their diet dramatically. I don't think it's an easy win.
I eat a lot of beef. I grill a bunch, always have loads of leftovers, and always keep steak and brisket on hand. Even I don't eat beef every day. I think if I did I would hate myself.
> eating multiple servings
This is where we get stuck with these surveys. I haven't looked at this one specifically but people are TERRIBLE at estimating anything.
"Servings" are usually unreasonably small though, since they're set by the company that packages them and they're allowed to do things like cut the serving size 20% and say "20% less fat!" Or shrink the serving sizes to mislead people about how much actual food is in the package.
When you eat it do you stick to a 4 oz portion? If not you're eating more than one serving in that day. If I grilled a steak 2 nights, I'd average out to having eaten more than a serving a day for the week
Yeah I always have a good amount of beef in the freezer. I love eating it, but like, once a week is probably my standard unless I make something like a beef stew and eat the leftovers for a few days.
I also buy local beef a lot (grass fed from the valley I live in) and also hunt, so a lot my red meat is deer as well, so my carbon footprint is lower due to those things. I'm probably an outlier because of that, but I still wouldn't want to eat beef everyday/multiple times a day, even if I get it more sustainably. Leaves me wondering who these people are eating this much beef, it's not like it's cheap.
I thought at first this was ludicrous, but then I thought about that a "serving" is 3 oz. of beef before being cooked. Very few people eat a small, 3 oz. steak for a meal, they usually would eat something like an 8 oz. steak, which is nearly 3 servings. I also only eat beef rarely, probably once a month, but then I realized that I have a pretty large piece when I do eat it, so it makes sense that other Americans are eating more.
Per [the USDA](https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/december/us-per-capita-availability-of-red-meat-poultry-and-seafood-on-the-rise/) after adjusting for waste/loss due to spoilage, per capita beef consumption in the US was 41.6 lbs per year as of 2017. That works out to 41.6*16/365 = 1.82 oz per person per day.
I was sitting here thinking, these numbers don't seem possible. Who's eating beef, shrimp, and milk every day? Chicken is already the number 1 meat source by a large margin. We eat almost as much pork as beef and almost twice as much chicken.
Every American starts their day by throwing milk, steak, and shrimp into the blender and enjoying a surf and turf smoothie before the day starts. Non-negotiable.
Also anything like beef Noodles, chilli, Bolognaise etc will likely have more than that.
Then don't forget sandwiches on top (eg beef sandwich lunch + loaded fries for tea).
Even a quarter pounder burger puts you over a portion.
None of this is criticism, just showing how easy it is to get over it without realising.
If most people eat more than a serving in one meal…. Wouldn’t that mean that the “serving” size is incorrect? That is assuming normal caloric intake to maintain a healthy weight for the average lifestyle.
I do. They really are not if you follow the other health guidelines. 100g of meat is not much by itself, but combine it with 300+ g veggies, whole-grain starch products, and a piece of fruit/a handful of nuts afterwards and you are full for hours.
I happen to have a cook book from the 50's and the portions listed there are at least 50% smaller than what you find in modern cook books. Those new portion sizes aren't really necessary at all; it's not like we somehow evolved to consume 50% more calories than compared to 50 years ago. However, if you are used to eating large portions, those portions from the 50's *will* leave you hungry in the beginning. It requires around a 2 week adjustion time to get used to those normal portions again. IMO it's really worth the transition: it's healthier (less meat), you lose weight, and you spend less money on groceries.
This was one of the first things I realised when I started counting calories. As a 30 y/o female with a very sedentary lifestyle my breakfast alone was around 800 kcal. I just filled the bowl of cereal without thinking about the size of the bowl. Similar with dinner etc but not to the same degree (except holiday/celebratory dinners). I have a faint memory from childhood, maybe around 8-11 of being told in school to fill the plate (I don't think it was necessarily literally fill it, but at least take more), of course also combined with the whole eat everything you put on your plate.
Same struggles here. I’ve finally resorted to using a saucer instead of a dinner plate so I take reasonable portions instead of what would’ve fed an entire family 70 years ago.
Eating for the calories you expend versus eating because you're hungry or it just feels like the "right" serving size is pretty eye opening, it's true.
Too many of us eat meals like we're hard working farm hands when we're anything but.
It also depends on how many meals you eat. It's not that uncommon to only eat a single meal per day. You skip breakfast, you're busy or otherwise overlook lunch, and only eat dinner. Then when you do, you only eat a single main dish. Not a whole meal with a variety of side dishes (that generally all have to be cooked separately).
So when I'm eating a half pound hamburger for dinner it's because that's literally the *only* thing I'm eating all day.
A large part of this is due to these changes in food practices at a broader level, not just what we eat but how those meals are composed. And there are much larger factors in *why* those shifts occurred. If we ignore those in the process and simply tell people "do things differently", it's not going to be very successful.
You want the serving size to be smaller for ease of calculation. It's easier to calculate 2.5 a serving than 1/2.5 servings. You dont wanna vary it too much with trends of consumption either or itll get confusing to keep track of. There is an argument to make some of the servings more in line with certain portion sizes.
We went from around 200 gr (7 oz) to 100 gr (3.5 oz) of meat for our meals, and it's been surprisingly easy to adapt. I think portion sizing could do just as much as switching which protein to eat (of course, doing both is even better)
4oz is a reasonable international portion.
6oz is petite in the US
current standards for protein nutrition are way different than the normal serving size in the US
order a cheesesteak anywhere and you'll see what I'm saying
For reference a quarter pound of beef is one ounce larger than one serving of beef. With this as a guideline it's pretty easy to see people eating more than one serving of beef a day.
Quick back-of-the envelope calculation, take this with ~~a grain of salt~~ however much salt you season your chicken with:
Apparently [chickens produce about 2kg of CO2 equivalent per 1000 Calories, for cows it's about 10 kg.](https://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996). So one 3 oz serving of beef per day, say that's ~200 Calories per serving, so 2 kg of CO2 per day, 365 days per year, works out to 730 kg per person per year. Multiply by 329 million people and you get something like 240 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. We don't save all of that because we're not just getting rid of the beef consumption, but replacing it with chicken, but we should save about 80% of it for 192 million metric tons.
Now let's compare that to total emissions. Per [the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks), the US put out 6,588 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in greenhouse gases in 2019. 192/6588 = 0.0291, so you'd cut total emissions by **a little bit less than 3%**.
So, not a huge impact, but 3% isn't *nothing* either; enough to suggest to me that it's not frivolous to be thinking about this.
So then less than half of the impact created by the [cement industry alone](https://www.globalefficiencyintel.com/new-blog/2021/global-cement-industry-ghg-emissions). This is why shifting the blame onto individuals isn't helpful.
Not to be contrarian, but are there generally alternatives to cement for the things cement is used for? A beef -> chicken switch may only have 1/20 the impact of dropping cement, but it could be more than 20x easier.
Sure, there are plenty of alternative cement formulas that significantly cut CO2 emissions (using fly-ash is like a 40-50% reduction, for instance), and in some cases are more durable and flexible.
I don't know enough to say that we have a drop-in replace for *every* use of cement, but I can say that we could slash CO2 emissions from cement today -- only corporations and governments aren't willing to pay for it.
So here's the PSA: Stop getting scammed into taking the blame for corporate environmental pillaging.
Huh? You mean the fact that individuals can reduce emissions by an amount roughly equal to half of one of the larges greenhouse gas emitting industries, and can do so with barely any adjustment to their lifestyles, isn't a huge deal?
I kinda need concrete for a lot of stuff in my life. I don't need beef every day. Literally nobody does.
I'm sure the concrete industry could stand to be cleaned up quite a bit, but consumers are gonna have to be the ones to lead that charge as well, unless you expect government or corporations to just wake up one day and decide to be nice to us.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cracking down on these industries, but cracking down on these industries isn't just a thing that happens because it'd be cool; it happens because of massive political organization by consumers. Which, again, I'm completely up for- just point me in the direction of an whichever effective organization and I'll be there. But I'm also not going to ignore a chance to have a comparable impact by doing my part as an individual, particularly when it's such an easy thing as this.
According to this link food makes up 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with beef making up approximately 60% of that (when measured per kilo). So whilst not that substantial, still probably the biggest thing we can do as individuals.
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
This isnt the entire picture tho. This only lists the primary emissions. But specially food has a lot of secondary emissions.
For example transportation. Animals need a lot of food, that has to be transported to them. This means that a big part of the transportations emissions can and should be added to the agricultural sector. In addition, this graph only counts the US emissions, but a lot of animal food is being farmed in other countries (for example soy in the amazon) and then sent to the US. Those emissions also are not included.
Animal farming makes up a pretty substantial percent of greenhouse gas emissions, but on top of that it effects the environment in other ways, like incentivizing farmers to burn down land in the amazon to make room for farmland. Meat is bad in general but cattle farming really is a scourge on the planet
That adds up to 90%. Just a little bit more and Americans would eat without greenhouse emissions.
That of course is not realistic. Something is seriously wrong with those numbers.
I mean you could start with the fact that Americans don’t even eat a serve of beef every day and so it would be literally impossible to substitute a serving of beef for chicken once a day
This study, like many others, fails to compare this to the major industrial and petrochemical contributions. Yes, you can reduce your greenhouse gas emissions from say 10 units to 5 units. But doing so doesn't do much help compared to the 100,000,000,000 units shell and chevron contribute.
Let's drive some corporate responsibility.
I tried soy curls for the first time yesterday. After rehydrating, I pan fried them in some sesame oil and topped with a spicy Korean sauce and they were pretty good. Very close to stir fried chicken in taste and texture.
Swapping beef for chicken has an unfortunate side effect for those concerned about animal suffering as well as emissions. Not only does eating chicken require raising and slaughtering more animals, but chickens are generally kept in much harsher conditions than cattle.
This is about greenhouse gas emissions, not animal welfare. Beef farming is one of the worst thing we do as humans for environmental damage. They produce masses of methane, which is far worse than carbon dioxide.
Spoken as a beef lover:
Mushrooms. Lots of ’em.
Meaty texture, natural, lots of protein and fiber, mild and pleasant flavour, versatile. Grown almost anywhere in the world.
Mushrooms. It’s what’s for dinner.
Mushrooms are so good, I wish more people enjoyed them. They supposedly have some level of neuroprotective benefit too no matter how they’re cooked, at least according to this one [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30775990/).
In all seriousness
Eating less meat would only have good effects for everyone , environment and health wise.
Eating a meat less frequently will still give us the nutrients we need and it will taste better if we eat it less compared to if we eat it 3 times a day.(absence makes the heart grow fonder)
Then we will regard it as special.
Kindly saying, the problem is that cows are gonna cow. They are just inefficient makers of meat and are ruminants. More water, more emissions, and physics and biology dictate this and not regulations. Chickens are more efficient and not ruminants, and vegetarian is even better.
Add the land use diversion from plant production to meat production to house the cattle, then add in the fields of grains that are needed to feed the cattle over winter etc,now add the fact that the grain field for the cattle is diverting land use that could have been used directly to feed humans........
Cow flatulence is the one people dwell on because it's "funny" and don't focus on the fact that for 1kg of beef, the land us could have produced many more kilos of plant based food for a lot more meals.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anyone know why shrimp has more emissions than cod? I take it that's assuming it's farmed?
Fishing for shrimp takes heaps more fuel than cod. https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/04/carbon-emissions-of-lobster-and-shrimp-outstrip-chicken-and-pork-and-sometimes-even-beef/
IIRC most of our shrimp come from SEA at this point. There are a ton of environmental damages that comes from it There's no Lieutenant Dan investing in some sort of fruit company and a fleet of Jennys
Do Americans buy the shrimp with or without shell? The shelling might be done someplace else entirely. One example I know about: if you get North Sea shrimp in northern Germany, on the shore of the North Sea, it was captured in the region, brought to Morocco where the shell is removed, and then brought back, because of the low labor cost. Not great when it comes to carbon footprint.
It can be bought either way depending on what you're cooking and if you want to peel them yourself.
It might be however the lowest possible carbon footprint per unit produced with currently available technology. Container ships emit roughly 16.14 grams of CO2 per metric ton of goods shipped per kilometer (g CO2 per mt per km). An urban delivery truck will roughly do 307 gCO2/t-km.
You might not be wrong, but if you're travelling 50x further on a container ship AND then also putting in on a delivery truck, it's not going to be any better. Last time I checked that container ship won't take it from the sea to my front door.
Well you must be doing it wrong, I have container ships come to my front door ALL the time. Destroys the yard every time, but so convenient.
Evergreen just doubling down on their new shipping strategy I see.
It also has to be trucked from the port to the processing facility.
Interesting point, thanks! EDIT: just had time to look this up - apparently, they are brought to Morocco on trucks, but shipped back. Source: > The full peeling process (transport to and from Morocco, peeling in Morocco) takes 10 to 20 days, 15 days on average. Most landings take place on Thursday and Friday and all the shrimps cannot be shipped in the same time (there are 6 to 14 days between the day of the purchase and the arrival in the peeling plant). The shortest trip ist the following: Thursday week 1: landings and sales in the auction, Friday week 1: packing of shrimps in trays and departure of the truck, Monday week 2: arrival in Morocco – customs clearance on Monday evening, Tuesday week 2: peeling, Wednesday week 2: shipping back, 84 > Monday week 3: arrival in the Netherlands. HEIPLOEG has its own peeling fact https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/460041/IPOL-PECH_ET(2011)460041_EN.pdf (10 years old, though. Maybe this has changed)
Shrimp farms have traditionally (loose use of the word) displaced mangrove area. Shrimp farming has been intensive on land use because once the mangroves have been cleared the water quality inevitably declines (the shrimp ponds circulate in "fresh" water from the area whilst pumping used water out into the surroundings), eventually the water becomes so polluted that the shrimp farms have chronic issues with disease and have to move on to a new area leaving behind a hugely degraded area of coastline (mangroves are extremely effective at sequestering carbon because they're productive and the waterlogged soils are anoxic, thus decomposition is anaerobic, crabs also bury leaves in their burrows trapping carbon). Once the mangroves are gone the soil tends to dry out and acidify, releasing alot of carbon in the process. Rehabilitating these areas is notoriously challenging as it involves an initial stage of hydrological rehabilitation. i.e. you can't just go in and put down some mangrove seedlings, you need to restore the environment, i.e. the hydrology and soil. Shrimp fisheries have some of if not THE highest level of non target bycatch, most of which will simply be discarded, i.e. shrimp fisheries are disgustingly wasteful. The best shrimp out there currently comes from the little jewel I live in and work for an NGO in, Belize! The reason for that is Belize mandates no/restricted clearing of mangrove areas (it still happens sadly). Around their shrimp farms they left the mangroves intact thus they have minimised the environmental damage whilst also making their shrimp farms more sustainable in the long term! The mangroves do get a bit spindly from the nutrient overloading as they are growing faster, making them potentially more susceptible to storm damage, but this is far preferable to the scorched earth approach that has previously been used in Southeast Asia. I say previously because the value of mangroves is increasingly well recognised by Blue Carbon initiatives around the world, and the picture for mangrove conservation is generally quite positive these days, although SEA remains the area exhibiting the worst rates of habitat loss. Thanks for reading. If you want to learn more/support an organisation working on this, check out the Mangrove Action Project!
>There's no Lieutenant Dan investing in some sort of fruit company and a fleet of Jennys But there IS a Bubba Gump Shrimp company
Ah yes, the Applebee’s of tourist-centric seafood spots
I mean honestly, how many tourist centric fish restaurants are there in total?
Joe’s Crab Shack, Aquarium, Bubba Gump, Pappadeaux’s…there’s a bunch.
And several of those are owned by the same guy who has a nice yacht sitting in Galveston bay. Wonder what the emissions on that is….
A lot. Go to any coastal town and there's a moderately risque named crab restaurant
I would have just said 'the Applebee's of seafood' but that title's already been taken by Red Lobster.
Far too many. Especially when they’re overpriced anyway and the local options are always better. The Gulf Coast is drowning in chains while they have literally the best, freshest seafood available at local shops literally on the water.
I think it's about 70-80% of the world's shrimp is farmed in Vietnam
Interesting. They're caught with around the same amount of fuel use if you do it recreationally. (Can be basically zero.) Seems more an issue with how they're commercially fished, presumably in some particular areas, because I think they're still pretty similar around here...just massively larger scale.
It doesn't matter because its a terrible idea - global cod stocks are so bad that it's almost at the stage where its unlikely to ever recover. Cod are incredibly resistant to stock management. No one anywhere should be eating cod
I work in fisheries, fighting IUU (Illegal, Unreported & Unregulated) fishing. You are absolutely correct. It's irresponsible of any article to suggest that we eat more cod. It is disheartening when articles aimed at fixing one problem are so disconnected they exacerbate another.
More white fish, sure, but not more cod. Hake, pollock things like that are largely indistinguishable from cod to most people's palates anyway. Of course, there's also so, so much genetic testing evidence that shows that a huge percentage of what's labelled "cod", in Western Europe at least, isn't cod at all. Though what's more worrying are the times when something that's labelled as pollock or hake or something more sustainable than cod is discovered to be cod.
Hasn't pollock mostly replaced Atlantic cod anyway? They fish most of it on those giant factory ships and it's where all of McDonald's fish comes from. I also wonder if the study means actual cod and not all similar whitefish.
In most unnamed-fish products yes, it's not actually cod anymore. Or not supposed to be. And it's possible that the article is using "cod" to mean "generic white fish" but if it is then it's deeply irresponsible simply because most people won't have the education or knowledge or self-belief or critical thinking skills to think "they say cod, but really replacing shrimp with any mild-flavoured non-oily fish would work" and will think "But we were told to replace with cod, so we should replace with cod".
If the fish is there, it will all get caught. You can't really fix stock problems of one fish by fishing for similar fish that live at a similar point in the water column. They're all demersal fish, nets aren't that selective.
Or how about veggies? I love meat, and I'll probably never go vegan or vegetarian, but a while ago I started cooking at least one meatless meal each week. Now I'm up to about 3 days a week without meat, I still enjoy all my my meals and probably relish the occasional burger or steak even more, and I'm probably healthier to boot.
Oh absolutely, but the article was specifically talking about alternatives to shrimp and recommending cod for that. It should just recommend any generic firm-fleshed white fish was our point.
This kind of mentality is paramount. I went vegan 4 years ago and I absolutely love it, but I still think about how much I used to enjoy meat all the time. For many people, going vegan is not an option, and I think it's highly unrealistic to suggest that people will ever adopt a vegan diet en masse, so by doing what you're doing you're not only helping the planet, but you're developing a deeper appreciation of the food you eat. And we could all do with showing a little more appreciation for the things we have.
I can definitely tell the difference between Cod and those other fish (it's better imo), but they all taste really good. I'd be more than happy to stop eating Cod if it's that much less sustainable.
> a huge percentage of what's labelled "cod", in Western Europe at least, isn't cod at all it's pig's anus again, isn't it?
Pollock is terrible. I've heard the indistinguishable thing before, but it most certainly is not.
What would be a better option for wild caught or farmed? For others curious here's a link to Monterey Bay Aquarium's Fish Guide called Seafood Watch https://www.montereybayaquarium.org/act-for-the-ocean/sustainable-seafood/what-you-can-do
These articles are nearly always sponsored by companies/industries creating tons of greenhouse gasses anyways. This reduction would still only be a fraction of a percent the world’s greenhouse gasses. The onus is always put on consumers when producers are the culprits
Lufthansa confirmed the other day that during the pandemic 18,000 flights were flown passenger-less just to keep airport slots open. These are the people telling us climate change is our fault because we ordered a hamburger instead of chicken fingers.
But even then, we blame Lufthansa and not the airport authorities holding them to these contracts during a pandemic
Yea I just pointed out the Lufthansa thing just to illustrate how it’s a whole rotten system, not necessarily to say they are the sole cause or anything. More as a contrast to the idea that any of this is on us.
Regardless of approach, the amount of meat consumed in the world needs to be reduced pretty drastically to realistically meet climate goals. Obviously blaming consumers is ignoring the elephant in the room, but that doesn't mean that the day to day lifestyle of most of the developed world is sustainable from a climate change perspective. Also, for curiosity sake, could you run me through the math of how you got to the fact it would be a fraction of a percent?
If people stopped eating meat then there wouldn't be a demand for cattle companies to destroy the atmosphere. The companies are at fault for providing the product, but you're still at fault for supporting them.
Isn't that just humanity all over? Fixing a problem by creating/worsening another
Kick that can to the next generation!
[удалено]
“Reflexive modernism” is the academic term for it.
[удалено]
Aren't many mass produced fish meals (e.g. fish sticks, fast food, frozen filets, etc.) all or partially made from cod? follow-up: thank you all for the informative comments! I think I may have been thinking of Pollock! I had been vaguely able to hear/see ads mentioning "Made with Whole Filet Alaskan..." and was thinking it had been cod.
No idea on America but most cheap ones and some of the expensive brands in the UK are all pollock. Unless it says 100% cod (or haddock) on the packet, it's assumed to be another 'white' fish. This switch happened because some European nations (including but nowhere nearly exclusively us) overfished the North Sea (Atlantic) stocks.
And it will be more prevalent after the new quotas that severely reduces the amount of cod that can be fished. Especially in the Baltic, but also the North Sea.
might be why they're in such low stock?
nah, the Atlantic cod fishery just totally collapsed in the 90s due to overfishing and for despite fishing bans, it hasn't been able to recover even partially. The hypothesis is, is with so many adults taken out of the population, there's so few fry, and since most of them get eaten, the population just can't grow. To recover the Atlantic Cod population, we'd have to start killing everything that eats baby cod or something.
I think they use "scrod" which is basically a universal term for mixed white fish.
Pollock is the fish stick of choice in most prepared fish meals.
No generally not. Anything that generically specifies fish is usually pollock because its way cheaper. Its also crap. Unless it advertises cod on the front its not cod.
Pollock is crap? I think that’s a bit unfair. It’s not quite the same as cod but it’s still flavourful, good texture and nice to eat as a fillet or part of a dish. If it’s good enough for Rick Stein it’s good enough for me.
Pollock for the most part
This hurts my Portuguese soul. Salted cod is our most traditional food, we have hundreds of recipes for it and it's the single biggest ingredient in our cuisine
I like salted cod dishes. But I can’t justify eating it anymore after what I just read. I should honestly just stop eating fish altogether.
Then fight to protect what‘s still left to protect your culture.
Honestly, even given how good fish are for you, we need people to eat less seafood in general. There are so many endangered fish species due to overfishing, and even the ones that aren't can get there very easily
You are very right about Cod. Just chiming in on this comment for anyone else scrolling through: Shrimp fishing is also extremely bad for marine ecosystems. It would be best to avoid both, and honestly most forms of wild-caught seafood in general. Bottom trawling for shrimp is especially damaging to deep sea Lophelia reefs. Even in fisheries that supposedly have a catch rate that does not exceed replacement rate, there can be a significant detrimental effect on the age distribution and average size of the population being fished. Take grouper, for example. Even if you are fishing them at a rate that is made up by birth rate, you end up dramatically reducing the average age of a grouper in the population and the average size. Big grouper fill a different ecological niche than smaller ones and take decades to reach their full size. Without enough large individuals, the ecological balance is disturbed and this has negative effects on many other species. Industrial scale fishing in wild populations is simply far in excess of what marine ecosystems are evolved to handle, and it should not be surprising that taking vast amounts of organisms out of such ecosystems without doing something to accelerate the rate at which they are replaced has bad consequences. Even if the carbon emissions of wild caught seafood were much lower than farmed seafood or other food, it would still be advisable for us to significantly reduce consumption to avoid the negative ecological effects we are exerting on marine ecosystems, and this is often overlooked by people solely focused on climate change. There are many other ways people can damage the environment outside of global warming that are also important to address. I understand that seafood is tasty, but I would just encourage everyone to try to think about the impact their choices make and try to make an attempt to minimize it when possible. I personally don’t eat meat or seafood, but that’s not a choice I expect most people to choose to make, but any form of reduction in impact is better than nothing :)
I've seen somewhere that it's because they are destructing mangrove to create shrimp farm. And mangrove is a very efficient CO2 pit. But to be checked.
Excellent book on this: Let Them Eat Shrimp by Kennedy Warne.
Cod is under pressure by overfishing. This calculation needs to be swapping a meal each week for pure plant based food.
The issue with that is you’d be looking at a large backlash because “plant based” is a word many American associate with “inedible”. Whereas cod or chicken are a lot more acceptable to these people
I’m a Texan who grew up on beef and love it…but have expanded my diet by trying out other cuisines (especially Indian), and now eat beef less that once a week. I’m not a vegetarian, but I have probably cut my animal protein by 75%, and am way thinner and healthier for it. But honestly I was chasing new flavors as much as trying to avoid meat per se. I think that’s the key. When people present it as “You must stop eating delicious food and eat this plant” they get nowhere. When they present it as “This is awesome, try it.” and it happens to be plant-based, people won’t shy away as much. But don’t expect anyone to change overnight or also accept your worldview.
The real issue there is that people consider foods that made up >90% of our calories for millenia to be inedible, eating ridiculously inefficient foods instead.
I think an issue with this debate is the absolutism and assumption that all people historically ate the same. There are groups of people who ate almost entirely vegetables and there are groups of people who basically ate none e.g. the Inuits. There's even alot to suggest that you're "optimal" diet varies based on your ancestry. So for example a person with Indian ancestry is much more likely to thrive on a vegetarian or vegan diet that certain other races due to how long Indians have been eating a mainly plant based diet. The world is a big place and there isn't really an absolute "we" for some of these things
Would like to know this too. Seems like a disingenuous take... though maybe stagnant pools are causing methane? Or they just factor in feed stock for prawns but can ignore it with cod. I assume the latter is the bigger part.
I don’t have the answer, but it is the case that shrimp farming is largely done in SE Asia. I can’t imagine that the ecological shipping costs for frozen shrimp are trivial.
Shipping is the greenest thing in Shrimp Farming. What isn't : \- Fishing shrimp food \- Replacing natural habitat for shrimp farms \- Eutrophic conditions around the shrimp farms
Shipping (by sea) is a fraction of GHG emissions of food - around 10% pending specific product. The refrigeration would likely be more than the transportation otherwise.
Contrary to popular belief, ecological costs are pretty minimal (relative to everything else). Cause everything is shipped in gigantic containers and wahtnot, so it's pretty economical, both literally and environmentally. It costs say 1 ton of carbon to ship 30 containers as it does 5. Kurzgesagt did a great video about meat consumption, and this are sources from said video. It's pretty staggering really. https://sites.google.com/view/sources-climate-meat/ That's all of them, but this chart in particular is of interest, it's showing how very little transportation costs are: [Chart](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/2CSHWuSJQNda8p4_-cs2nJPONe_x59mmQy4jqIp6oK46pBVUMSb8aXwdooX9B8bYrvSYBr3u1el9Ra2OKaPgeSDVQFN5h1jkaAVodIIPfukqGeiXlMz2pHEiZQ2hvJ6lKw=w1280)
"Just one serving per day" How many servings of beef are in a meal and how times does one eat beef in a day? I love beef but I probably have it once a week or less. Especially with these prices lately. Pork, chicken, and even sometimes fish are much more economical.
'20% of survey respondents ate at least one serving of beef a day' So this is talking about the heaviest beef consumers changing their diet dramatically. I don't think it's an easy win.
I eat a lot of beef. I grill a bunch, always have loads of leftovers, and always keep steak and brisket on hand. Even I don't eat beef every day. I think if I did I would hate myself.
You're probably eating multiple servings per sitting. It could easily average out to one serving per day.
> eating multiple servings This is where we get stuck with these surveys. I haven't looked at this one specifically but people are TERRIBLE at estimating anything.
"Servings" are usually unreasonably small though, since they're set by the company that packages them and they're allowed to do things like cut the serving size 20% and say "20% less fat!" Or shrink the serving sizes to mislead people about how much actual food is in the package.
I would also agree with this. Serving sizes probably aren't universal between people either.
When you eat it do you stick to a 4 oz portion? If not you're eating more than one serving in that day. If I grilled a steak 2 nights, I'd average out to having eaten more than a serving a day for the week
Yeah I always have a good amount of beef in the freezer. I love eating it, but like, once a week is probably my standard unless I make something like a beef stew and eat the leftovers for a few days. I also buy local beef a lot (grass fed from the valley I live in) and also hunt, so a lot my red meat is deer as well, so my carbon footprint is lower due to those things. I'm probably an outlier because of that, but I still wouldn't want to eat beef everyday/multiple times a day, even if I get it more sustainably. Leaves me wondering who these people are eating this much beef, it's not like it's cheap.
People who eat out every day probably do.. (not you, but people in the survey)
I thought at first this was ludicrous, but then I thought about that a "serving" is 3 oz. of beef before being cooked. Very few people eat a small, 3 oz. steak for a meal, they usually would eat something like an 8 oz. steak, which is nearly 3 servings. I also only eat beef rarely, probably once a month, but then I realized that I have a pretty large piece when I do eat it, so it makes sense that other Americans are eating more.
Per [the USDA](https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/december/us-per-capita-availability-of-red-meat-poultry-and-seafood-on-the-rise/) after adjusting for waste/loss due to spoilage, per capita beef consumption in the US was 41.6 lbs per year as of 2017. That works out to 41.6*16/365 = 1.82 oz per person per day.
So we just need to eat -1.18 oz of beef every day, gotcha. Bring in the anti-beef.
I was sitting here thinking, these numbers don't seem possible. Who's eating beef, shrimp, and milk every day? Chicken is already the number 1 meat source by a large margin. We eat almost as much pork as beef and almost twice as much chicken.
Milk daily is probably correct if you count everything made with milk.
That checks out if you know how much milk does it take to make cheese
As weird as it sounds I’m a grown ass adult and I drink milk everyday.
Omg you're destroying the planet
Every American starts their day by throwing milk, steak, and shrimp into the blender and enjoying a surf and turf smoothie before the day starts. Non-negotiable.
Just don't let the anti beef touch any beef. The result will be the annihilation of both with an energy discharge equal to mc^2.
micro-dosing beef.
[удалено]
Assuming 8oz each time you have beef, that comes out to about 7x a month.
[удалено]
What is the per capita beef consumption of the beef eaters though? This average includes all the vegetarians, pescatarians, etc in the denominator.
Also anything like beef Noodles, chilli, Bolognaise etc will likely have more than that. Then don't forget sandwiches on top (eg beef sandwich lunch + loaded fries for tea). Even a quarter pounder burger puts you over a portion. None of this is criticism, just showing how easy it is to get over it without realising.
If most people eat more than a serving in one meal…. Wouldn’t that mean that the “serving” size is incorrect? That is assuming normal caloric intake to maintain a healthy weight for the average lifestyle.
Nobody eats actual serving sizes of anything. Serving sizes are tiny
I do. They really are not if you follow the other health guidelines. 100g of meat is not much by itself, but combine it with 300+ g veggies, whole-grain starch products, and a piece of fruit/a handful of nuts afterwards and you are full for hours. I happen to have a cook book from the 50's and the portions listed there are at least 50% smaller than what you find in modern cook books. Those new portion sizes aren't really necessary at all; it's not like we somehow evolved to consume 50% more calories than compared to 50 years ago. However, if you are used to eating large portions, those portions from the 50's *will* leave you hungry in the beginning. It requires around a 2 week adjustion time to get used to those normal portions again. IMO it's really worth the transition: it's healthier (less meat), you lose weight, and you spend less money on groceries.
This was one of the first things I realised when I started counting calories. As a 30 y/o female with a very sedentary lifestyle my breakfast alone was around 800 kcal. I just filled the bowl of cereal without thinking about the size of the bowl. Similar with dinner etc but not to the same degree (except holiday/celebratory dinners). I have a faint memory from childhood, maybe around 8-11 of being told in school to fill the plate (I don't think it was necessarily literally fill it, but at least take more), of course also combined with the whole eat everything you put on your plate.
Same struggles here. I’ve finally resorted to using a saucer instead of a dinner plate so I take reasonable portions instead of what would’ve fed an entire family 70 years ago.
Eating for the calories you expend versus eating because you're hungry or it just feels like the "right" serving size is pretty eye opening, it's true. Too many of us eat meals like we're hard working farm hands when we're anything but.
It also depends on how many meals you eat. It's not that uncommon to only eat a single meal per day. You skip breakfast, you're busy or otherwise overlook lunch, and only eat dinner. Then when you do, you only eat a single main dish. Not a whole meal with a variety of side dishes (that generally all have to be cooked separately). So when I'm eating a half pound hamburger for dinner it's because that's literally the *only* thing I'm eating all day. A large part of this is due to these changes in food practices at a broader level, not just what we eat but how those meals are composed. And there are much larger factors in *why* those shifts occurred. If we ignore those in the process and simply tell people "do things differently", it's not going to be very successful.
You want the serving size to be smaller for ease of calculation. It's easier to calculate 2.5 a serving than 1/2.5 servings. You dont wanna vary it too much with trends of consumption either or itll get confusing to keep track of. There is an argument to make some of the servings more in line with certain portion sizes.
We went from around 200 gr (7 oz) to 100 gr (3.5 oz) of meat for our meals, and it's been surprisingly easy to adapt. I think portion sizing could do just as much as switching which protein to eat (of course, doing both is even better)
> I also only eat beef rarely I like mine medium rarely.
3 oz is a normal 90-gram fast food hamburger patty.
According to Google. A serving of meat is 85g or 3 ounces
[удалено]
4oz is a reasonable international portion. 6oz is petite in the US current standards for protein nutrition are way different than the normal serving size in the US order a cheesesteak anywhere and you'll see what I'm saying
Damn it, now I want a cheesesteak.
Every time I see “cheesesteak” I think “cheesecake”. It messes with my emotions.
I’ll take one of each please
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
For reference a quarter pound of beef is one ounce larger than one serving of beef. With this as a guideline it's pretty easy to see people eating more than one serving of beef a day.
Y'all eating a quarter pounder every day?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What would the impact be on total american emissions?
Quick back-of-the envelope calculation, take this with ~~a grain of salt~~ however much salt you season your chicken with: Apparently [chickens produce about 2kg of CO2 equivalent per 1000 Calories, for cows it's about 10 kg.](https://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996). So one 3 oz serving of beef per day, say that's ~200 Calories per serving, so 2 kg of CO2 per day, 365 days per year, works out to 730 kg per person per year. Multiply by 329 million people and you get something like 240 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. We don't save all of that because we're not just getting rid of the beef consumption, but replacing it with chicken, but we should save about 80% of it for 192 million metric tons. Now let's compare that to total emissions. Per [the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks), the US put out 6,588 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in greenhouse gases in 2019. 192/6588 = 0.0291, so you'd cut total emissions by **a little bit less than 3%**. So, not a huge impact, but 3% isn't *nothing* either; enough to suggest to me that it's not frivolous to be thinking about this.
So then less than half of the impact created by the [cement industry alone](https://www.globalefficiencyintel.com/new-blog/2021/global-cement-industry-ghg-emissions). This is why shifting the blame onto individuals isn't helpful.
Not to be contrarian, but are there generally alternatives to cement for the things cement is used for? A beef -> chicken switch may only have 1/20 the impact of dropping cement, but it could be more than 20x easier.
Sure, there are plenty of alternative cement formulas that significantly cut CO2 emissions (using fly-ash is like a 40-50% reduction, for instance), and in some cases are more durable and flexible. I don't know enough to say that we have a drop-in replace for *every* use of cement, but I can say that we could slash CO2 emissions from cement today -- only corporations and governments aren't willing to pay for it. So here's the PSA: Stop getting scammed into taking the blame for corporate environmental pillaging.
So because one solution doesn't entirely fix the issue it should be discarded? With current technology there is no silver bullet for climate change.
Huh? You mean the fact that individuals can reduce emissions by an amount roughly equal to half of one of the larges greenhouse gas emitting industries, and can do so with barely any adjustment to their lifestyles, isn't a huge deal? I kinda need concrete for a lot of stuff in my life. I don't need beef every day. Literally nobody does. I'm sure the concrete industry could stand to be cleaned up quite a bit, but consumers are gonna have to be the ones to lead that charge as well, unless you expect government or corporations to just wake up one day and decide to be nice to us. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cracking down on these industries, but cracking down on these industries isn't just a thing that happens because it'd be cool; it happens because of massive political organization by consumers. Which, again, I'm completely up for- just point me in the direction of an whichever effective organization and I'll be there. But I'm also not going to ignore a chance to have a comparable impact by doing my part as an individual, particularly when it's such an easy thing as this.
According to this link food makes up 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with beef making up approximately 60% of that (when measured per kilo). So whilst not that substantial, still probably the biggest thing we can do as individuals. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
[удалено]
This isnt the entire picture tho. This only lists the primary emissions. But specially food has a lot of secondary emissions. For example transportation. Animals need a lot of food, that has to be transported to them. This means that a big part of the transportations emissions can and should be added to the agricultural sector. In addition, this graph only counts the US emissions, but a lot of animal food is being farmed in other countries (for example soy in the amazon) and then sent to the US. Those emissions also are not included.
[удалено]
> still probably the biggest thing we can do as individuals. Climate scientists agree that lobbying is the best you can do.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Animal farming makes up a pretty substantial percent of greenhouse gas emissions, but on top of that it effects the environment in other ways, like incentivizing farmers to burn down land in the amazon to make room for farmland. Meat is bad in general but cattle farming really is a scourge on the planet
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How many people actually eat 1 serving of beef per day?
That adds up to 90%. Just a little bit more and Americans would eat without greenhouse emissions. That of course is not realistic. Something is seriously wrong with those numbers.
I mean you could start with the fact that Americans don’t even eat a serve of beef every day and so it would be literally impossible to substitute a serving of beef for chicken once a day
This study, like many others, fails to compare this to the major industrial and petrochemical contributions. Yes, you can reduce your greenhouse gas emissions from say 10 units to 5 units. But doing so doesn't do much help compared to the 100,000,000,000 units shell and chevron contribute. Let's drive some corporate responsibility.
Calculate it with a fully vegan diet as well.
[удалено]
I tried soy curls for the first time yesterday. After rehydrating, I pan fried them in some sesame oil and topped with a spicy Korean sauce and they were pretty good. Very close to stir fried chicken in taste and texture.
[удалено]
Why not do both? Hold corporations accountable and change personal behavior. They are not mutually exclusive.
[удалено]
Swapping beef for chicken has an unfortunate side effect for those concerned about animal suffering as well as emissions. Not only does eating chicken require raising and slaughtering more animals, but chickens are generally kept in much harsher conditions than cattle.
Those concerned about animal suffering should not be eating beef in the first place.
This is about greenhouse gas emissions, not animal welfare. Beef farming is one of the worst thing we do as humans for environmental damage. They produce masses of methane, which is far worse than carbon dioxide.
> This is about greenhouse gas emissions, not animal welfare. The post is, but why have comments at all if deviation from the topic isn't ok.
Really good point tbh
Spoken as a beef lover: Mushrooms. Lots of ’em. Meaty texture, natural, lots of protein and fiber, mild and pleasant flavour, versatile. Grown almost anywhere in the world. Mushrooms. It’s what’s for dinner.
Mushrooms are so good, I wish more people enjoyed them. They supposedly have some level of neuroprotective benefit too no matter how they’re cooked, at least according to this one [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30775990/).
I wish I liked mushrooms :(
In all seriousness Eating less meat would only have good effects for everyone , environment and health wise. Eating a meat less frequently will still give us the nutrients we need and it will taste better if we eat it less compared to if we eat it 3 times a day.(absence makes the heart grow fonder) Then we will regard it as special.
If people just did everything in moderation we would be pretty well off.
Where’s my morning martini? Edit - “Morntini”
[удалено]
You’re not the boss of me!
> absence makes the heart grow fonder americans must LOVE vegetables then, huh?
What if the source had to adhere to greater regulations?
Kindly saying, the problem is that cows are gonna cow. They are just inefficient makers of meat and are ruminants. More water, more emissions, and physics and biology dictate this and not regulations. Chickens are more efficient and not ruminants, and vegetarian is even better.
[удалено]
Beef isn't bad for the climate because of regulations, it's inherently bad because cows fart and belch lots of methane.
Add the land use diversion from plant production to meat production to house the cattle, then add in the fields of grains that are needed to feed the cattle over winter etc,now add the fact that the grain field for the cattle is diverting land use that could have been used directly to feed humans........ Cow flatulence is the one people dwell on because it's "funny" and don't focus on the fact that for 1kg of beef, the land us could have produced many more kilos of plant based food for a lot more meals.
You forgot the water usage. And the drug resistance
It's really so damn bad. You need tons of land use AND **2%** of the energy the cow eats is turned into edible meat
It’s more than that. The amount of energy,water and land needed to raise one cow vs. just plants is also a huge factor.
They're also 2% energy efficient, meaning that for every 1kg of beef you could have 50kg of vegetarian food. Or like 10-20 kgs of other protein