All plant-based foods, whole-foods or not, have lower emissions than animal products
EDIT with a source:
Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits
[…]
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
How are people in this century not understanding that humans produce animals for consumption and that eating animals’ meat does not come from a magical apparition. We don’t eat cows that are out there, we create cows for you to eat (under 4 years)
But I like feeling like a real manly man when I eat my real manly meat in a real manly way with my real manly bros, surely that’s worth a few hundreds thousands human lives a year ?
(And btw, plant-based diets could also save 100 million animal lives a year)
I think it you want to see the environmental benefits, is less of saving animal lives and more ensuring that 100 million animals a year never exist?
Edit: Not sure what is controversial about this. We stop eating meat to stop farming of livestock. No livestock lives are saved, just new animals aren’t born into the mincer.
To elaborate - Ecosia is basically just a frontend for Bing. They split the revenue from advertisements with Bing, and donate a portion of their share to a variety is charities to support tree planting initiatives
It looks like the most recent month’s revenue split was low on trees (16.6%), but looking back at previous months they tend to average in the 25% to projects range. I wouldn’t be surprised if the increase in March advertising spending was all Earth Month related.
If you don’t mind Bing, and you don’t mind ads, Ecosia is a fantastic way to make a little impact every day with something you’d be doing anyways. If you do mind those things, then consider donating to one or more of the charities Ecosia supports, because at minimum they have a better project vetting budget than I do.
Its a great idea. I think it would be challenging to implement and would need quite a lot of domain expertise to really unpick. Need to have enough teeth to be able to assess whether level of action and emission mitigation is: above and beyond; in line with paris agreement needs; below needed but active work due to constraints; actively harmful company . E.g. some companies might be intrinsically high emitting because of their sector (e.g. steel manufacture) but doing all they can to decarbonise whilst some might instead be “decarbonising” largely through accounting tricks like offsets and others still just bankrolling delay and denial. Assessing what a Paris Agreement compliant pathways for sub- and multi-national organisations is actually really tricky. Similarly tricky to assess what “as fast as possible” really is for the same organisations.
For finance sector I know this: bank.green which might help some.
green
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.