Where's the comparison of the carbon footprint of a meat-based diet with a veggie one? They've counted transport in the 18% for meat. Those exotic fruit and veg being flown/shipped in from half the world away aren't exactly easy on the atmosphere either, y'know.
And amused as I am by the euphemism 'front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep', those are carbon neutral - They're only 'emitting' what they've taken in.
I think one also has to factor in the amount of energy and land required to produce meat versus veg. Surely it's obvious that in a field of a certain size you can get far fewer animals than plants, and therefore feed more people on a plant based diet for the same amount of land.
I wouldn't really take transport into account. But that's a whole other "apples from new zealand in september" rant :)
Whilst I'm pretty sure it's true that meat production has higher carbon emissions than veg production, the article might have you believe it's 18% versus 0%. I'd like to know how close it really is.
In terms of land required, you've got a one-off carbon footprint, which is the difference between the amount of carbon that was locked away on that land before it was used for farming and the amount after. All the recurring carbon footprint relates to the amount of energy used (i.e. fossil fuels burnt) in production and transport. I'd wager that transport is a pretty hefty proportion of that - particularly for New Zealand apples, or New Zealand lamb for that matter.
Basically what I'm trying to argue is that you'd probably be doing far more for the environment by buying local/British produce than you would by going veggie.
Comments 3
Where's the comparison of the carbon footprint of a meat-based diet with a veggie one? They've counted transport in the 18% for meat. Those exotic fruit and veg being flown/shipped in from half the world away aren't exactly easy on the atmosphere either, y'know.
And amused as I am by the euphemism 'front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep', those are carbon neutral - They're only 'emitting' what they've taken in.
Shoddy research or shoddy reporting - you decide!
I'm off to make myself a ham sandwich... :op
Reply
I wouldn't really take transport into account. But that's a whole other "apples from new zealand in september" rant :)
Reply
In terms of land required, you've got a one-off carbon footprint, which is the difference between the amount of carbon that was locked away on that land before it was used for farming and the amount after. All the recurring carbon footprint relates to the amount of energy used (i.e. fossil fuels burnt) in production and transport. I'd wager that transport is a pretty hefty proportion of that - particularly for New Zealand apples, or New Zealand lamb for that matter.
Basically what I'm trying to argue is that you'd probably be doing far more for the environment by buying local/British produce than you would by going veggie.
Reply
Leave a comment