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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
The article barely touches on fish. It suggests fish, eggs, and dairy are mostly fine, but doesn’t explicitly say that.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can we please get moving on the lab grown meats already. This shit is getting depressing.
Vegetables aren’t so scary, are they?
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!!
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.
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.
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.
did they already publish an article beforehand on how many eggs are sustainable?
or have they solved the age-old riddle?
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.
Let’s be honest about how unrealistic it is to expect people to voluntarily adhere to this. We need large scale lab meat asap
Oh god no.
Look at how much we fucked up natural meat with all the hormones and feed. Lab grown meat must be cheaper to make to compete with it, so imagine how atrocious the quality of it will be, from both health and nutrition perspective.
The problem is that people won’t give up personal luxuries for some vague ‘save the planet’ cause. This is simple fact. The only way to satisfy people’s desire for meat and the planet’s ecological balance is production of artificial meat.
If you don’t think it’ll have the best texture or nutritional value, then that’s fine. Do you think the people getting McDonald’s cares about those things?
Do you think the people getting McDonald’s cares about those things?
I’d rather not fed slab to the masses, thank you. Not only for ethical reasons, but also for monetary ones.
I’m all for the French model where they are taught (and given time and money) to consume healthy food. It’s the only Western nation where the obesity rate is low AND decreasing.
I want this paper without the “healthy” part. Tell us the limits of sustainability, then let people choose their own adventure, even if it isn’t a good one by whatever arbitrary standard is set by the researchers for what health means to them.
You want… less information? How does having information on health affects not “let” people make their own choices about their health concerns?? Indeed, how can they meaningfully make such decisions without that information?
No I want more information. I don’t want the current consensus of “healthy” between the authors, which may use arbitrary benchmarks, to prune down options that still satisfy a goal of sustainability.
The research team’s calculations take into account a number of environmental factors such as CO2 emissions, the consumption of water and land use, as well as the health impact of a particular diet. In total, they have examined more than 100,000 variations of 11 types of diets and calculated their respective environmental and health effects.
One of these things is not like the others and it looks like it is used to prune the set of variations. Is unhealthy like I get scurvy and die? Or is it that it may correlate with high cholesterol? Or is it that you are at risk of foodborne illness for eating under cooked meat/eggs/seafood? “Healthy” could encompass any of those and that’s nuts for data management.
Yeah, I agree here, they do supply all the data and methodology (though obviously some of it is paywalled) and I see how the way they presented it is probably the best for the LCD consumer, but I would have liked a decent concise summary of just the sustainability data.
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
