The most important part: what went into the calculation? There are plenty of things besides food that impact environmental sustainability, is diet alone sufficient to achieve it? Or did they just throw the rest out?
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
190 points (90.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6574 readers
325 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The article barely touches on fish. It suggests fish, eggs, and dairy are mostly fine, but doesn't explicitly say that.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
did they already publish an article beforehand on how many eggs are sustainable?
or have they solved the age-old riddle?
The answer is zero
Meanwhile, carnivore diet retards exist.
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.
No, its also the environmental impact. We passed 350 ppm.
The article is nonsense because it must be zero. We're already in a positive feedback loop. We have to reduce all emissions to zero to mitigate as much as possible. There is no amount of emissions that are acceptable.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you’re only eating two breasts a week, people can spring for the free range stuff
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)