I’m not interested in arguing, but I don’t think I suggested that people should eliminate beef and dairy. In reading the article, I felt the authors were expressing a preference for poultry and pork over beef and dairy in terms of climate footprint based on statements like these:
Eat food. Mostly plants.
^^^ I agree with that. The article favors poultry and pork according to their indicators used in this article. Less support for beef/dairy.
I felt that some people were commenting without regard for reading or looking at the content of the article. Thus my reminder. 
I’m guessing that locally sourced meats (beef or otherwise) would also be a positive.
Feed conversion ratio for beef is much worse than for chicken or pork, and cattle burp methane.
Not to sidetrack the thread and I can’t link to it as it’s a blog, but I suggest googling “The Lunatic Farmer” - run by Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms and reading his 9.24 entry. Good suggestions for reducing our carbon footprint, or I think so anyway.
Knowing a little bit about what it takes to make impossible burgers etc., I would never touch them. As @sabaray said, eat food, mostly plants. In moderation. Waste less of what you buy. Don’t buy single-serve containers. Don’t waste your money on Starbucks. Eat out less. Make your own meals.
Inspired by “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” I visited Polyface Farms a few years back. I was impressed that they supply chicken only to restaurants and stores within a certain distance of the farm so as to not waste fuel.
Just as I try to buy Made in America on large purchases, I try to buy local foods. California olive oil, for example. No reason to buy olive oil shipped from Italy or Spain. The U. S. is fortunate to be a country that does not need to import food. Some countries without our agricultural base don’t have that option.
All this worry over an insignificant trace gas is irrational. Neurotic.
CO2 is 1% of greenhouse gases.
Humans contribute 8% to that 1%. 0.0008. Of that the USA has a 16% share so 0.000128 of 400ppm CO2 or 0.05ppm of the total atmospheric CO2.
If the USA were to cease to exist (carbon neutral) what are you going to do to eliminate the other 99.99% of greenhouse gases? How will you stop clouds, humidity, oceans which are 98% of GHGs?
The Vegan solution is not bright. That will INCREASE CO2 from shipping all these leafy foods to and from 3rd world countries who clear-cut old forests and don’t have an EPA.
If you truly want to reduce CO2 promote the most abundant, cleanest, safest energy solution. Nuclear.
Have a nice day.
I read Joel Salatin’s blog. I agree that eating fake meat is likely more harmful than eating real meat. What’s in that stuff anyway? We human beings evolved as meat eaters. Maybe we shouldn’t eat so much, but meat eating is in our DNA, witness our incisors.
One thing I absolutely will not give up is air travel. I need to see my kids. I need to see the world.
After all, those celebrities who rant about climate change still have their homes around the world that they get to by private jet.
As some wag said, “When those who say it’s a crisis, start acting like it’s a crisis, then I’ll believe it’s a crisis”.
Well BB just saved me asking about Impossible Burgers. I did read the ingredients. I make my own lentil and nut/veggie burgers.
Anyway, the point isn’t only to engage in changes that directly solve a problem. Rather, to contribute our parts. Blaming the rest of the world? This is a big, multifaceted problem. I focus on my own efforts and seek no glory. (Except, I do nag my girls.)
Rather than meat eaters, it might be protein and amino acid eaters. I leave any fine distinctions to BB.
I got “low” on the quiz, which didn’t surprise me. We try to eat mostly plants, and eat locally.
One factor not listed is the use of tropical oils. They became a fad a few years ago, as if the saturated fat in coconut or palm oil is better for you than any other oil. I don’t really care about getting into that argument (I’m an “all things in moderation” person) but the effect of it was the devastating deforestation of forests in Asia. Tropical hardwood forests were being clear cut to make way for palm oil plantations, and the small bit of habitat for orangutans was made even smaller.
Eat butter, olive oil, sunflower, or canola oil instead. Better for the health of the world!
Both faux burger products contain coconut oil.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/08/if-everyone-ate-beans-instead-of-beef/535536/
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/if-everyone-ate-beans-instead-of-beef
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-017-1969-1
“With one dietary change, the U.S. could almost meet greenhouse-gas emission goals.” The dietary change referred to is everyone eating beans instead of beef (with no other changes in eating or other habits that may have environmental effects), although “almost” may be a stretch to describe getting 46-74% of the way to the goal (still quite a large portion of the goal).
Due to inefficient feed conversion ratio compared to other common meats and the burping of methane, beef has a much larger environmental impact than other common meats.
This is an interesting quiz to take. When I took it, I did more poorly than I thought I would do.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/04/specials/climate-change-solutions-quiz/?
I took that poll before, so I remembered a little of it.
SPOILER
It seems simple enough to fix our ACs and refrigerator chemicals - we should get started!
My guess is the communities/areas around the various nuclear accidents might disagree with you (Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Chernobyl, etc). And then there’s the nuclear waste that no one wants anywhere near them.
I agree with sabaray with one addendum. Stop eating so much.
Like @greenwitch, I scored “low” on @abasket’s original quiz. I prefer a plant based diet for a variety of reasons but to be honest, environmental impact isn’t high on my list of reasons why. I’m fortunate to be able to make that choice as not everyone can. I did terribly on the second quiz.
Let me assure you, if I switch to beans from beef there WILL be an increase in greenhouse gases.
I’m in the food business and I support much of the eat local movement, but I prefer the comment above: eat less.
Our business also assists a local CSA. The pickings are fairly repetitive. How many weeks of kale would you like?
With regard to eat local, the US cannot provide enough quality olive oil through farming here. Further, your cheese options will be severely limited if you can only buy US made cheeses. Bye bye Brie? No parmiggiano reggiano?
Consider what your favorite grocery store would look like if only local products were available in meat, dairy, cheese, and produce. Further, to truck food to metropolitan areas, how far away would still be “local” enough?
Last December 23rd, I was in a large grocery store with a beautiful table of red bell peppers. A woman kept picking up each pepper, eyeing the bar code sticker, and putting each back in the display. I finally asked her what was wrong. She was frustrated that none of them were grown in the US. A little bit of knowledge (eat local) lacked the comprehension that farmers can’t grow enough bell peppers in December to satisfy market needs.
Maybe we don’t need red bell peppers in December…but they do add color and vitamins.
P.S. It seems to me that much of the emissions issue is also tied to the order everything (overnight! Free delivery!) syndrome. There are trucks in my neighborhood every day delivering small packages to the same residences over and over. Maybe we should also be looking more intently at this Amazon-inspired issue?
The owners of Fiji water just gave a huge bundle of money to CalTech for climate research. I should say so. They must feel guilty. The foolishness of bottling water in Fiji and shipping it to the US is stunning. It’s hard to imagine anything more wasteful.
Whether folks are getting stuff from Amazon or from a local brick and mortar store, somebody is driving the stuff around - either USPS/UPS to your home or a truck to the local store and you trekking to the local store (assuming you live in a suburban/rural area). It would be interesting to compare the environment impact between the two. Also, that’s where reuse or reduce comes in. Just consume less crap.
As far as “eat local”, most of us can do a better job at that without going all in. Living in northern New England, it is definitely a lot harder to do in winter than folks living in California but the emphasis should be on making some degree of change in our food consumption patterns. Even some change multiplied by many people is a step in the right direction, right?