this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5284 readers
1 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Most of the US is empty and fertile unlike other parts of the world, land use is not really the biggest issue with meat farming

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Empty... to humans but not to native species that living there. Grazing still affects those ecosystems there. From the article

As the cattle graze, they tend to disrupt ecosystems and do a lot of damage to the land. They eat or destroy plants consumed by native species, like turtles, which can lead to biodiversity loss. Their manure pollutes rivers and streams, and as they move about, they erode soil.

[...] analyzed decades of BLM data and found that about half of the acreage it oversees that has been assessed fails to meet the agency’s own land health standards (in Nevada, it’s an alarming 83 percent). PEER points to livestock grazing as the primary source of land degradation.

There's an opportunity cost in using all that land. If we let land go back to its natural state we can sequester quite large amounts of carbon

A 2020 study published in the journal Nature Sustainability highlights the immense environmental potential of changing how we farm and eat. Researchers found that if all high-income countries shifted to a plant-based diet from 2015 to 2050, they’d free up enough land to sequester 32 gigatons of carbon dioxide — the equivalent of removing nine years of all those countries’ fossil fuel emissions from the atmosphere. Globally, if we shifted to plant-based diets over that same time period, the land saved could sequester the equivalent of 16 years of global fossil fuel emissions.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What's the environmental cost of growing all that soy, corn and oats for an US wide vegetarian diet?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

From the article

But not all agriculture is equally land-intensive. Meat-heavy diets require far more land than low-meat and vegetarian diets.

But not only that it also requires crop land for plant-based diets. From a different source

If everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%.

[...]

If we would shift towards a more plant-based diet we don’t only need less agricultural land overall, we also need less cropland.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

A lot less than farming meat which requires all the cost of growing that and ensuring the animals are fed and watered until slaughtering.