Science Men’s meat-heavy diets cause 40% more climate emissions than women’s, study finds - Research also shows 25% of diet-related emissions are from ‘optional’ food and drinks, such as coffee, alcohol and cake

7216.jpg

Men’s meaty diets are responsible for 40% more climate-heating emissions than those of women, according to a UK study.

The research also found a quarter of diet-related emissions were from “optional” food and drink, such as coffee, alcohol, cakes and sweets. The scientists said policies to encourage sustainable diets should focus on plant-based foods but switching drinks and cutting down on sweet snacks presented further opportunities.

A second study found in western countries, vegan and vegetarian diets were about a third cheaper to buy than regular diets, which the researchers said contrasted with the perception that they were the “preserve of a privileged middle class”.
https://www.theguardian.com/food/20...-seaweed-in-my-week-eating-a-climatarian-diet
Food production causes 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, and previous studies have shown that meat-eating in rich countries must be sharply reduced in order to tackle the climate crisis, largely caused by the methane and deforestation associated with cattle. But these studies have looked at the average emissions of broad food categories.

The new study, published in the journal Plos One, analysed the emissions linked to more than 3,200 specific food items and examined the diets of 212 British people, who recorded their food and drink intake over three 24-hour periods. It found animal products were responsible for almost half of the average diet’s greenhouse gas emissions: 31% from meat and 14% from dairy. Drink caused 15% of emissions and 8% came from cakes, biscuits and confectionery.

The research also showed that non-vegetarian diets created 59% more emissions than vegetarian diets. Men’s diets had 41% more emissions, largely due to eating more meat but also due to more drinks.

“We all want to do our bit to help save the planet,” said the scientists, led by Holly Rippin, at the University of Leeds. “Working out how to modify our diets is one way we can do that. There are broad-brush concepts like reducing our meat intake, particularly red meat, but our work also shows that big gains can be made from small changes, like cutting out sweets.”

Rippin said the research did not assess why men ate more meat. “But we can speculate that it could be because men generally eat more food than women,” she said. “We could also speculate that men may eat more traditional meat-based diets.”

Another recent study found that men’s spending on goods caused 16% more emissions than women’s, despite the sum of money being very similar, mostly due to higher spending on petrol and diesel for cars.

The scientists’ database also includes 40,000 branded food items, and they said that future research could allow people to cut their food emissions by swapping brands.

The study analysing the costs of different diets was published in the journal The Lancet Planetary Health. It compared seven sustainable diets to the current typical diet in 150 countries using food prices from the World Bank.

It found that in high-income countries, vegan diets were the most affordable, reducing food costs by 21-34% compared to average diets, depending on specific food choices. Vegetarian diets were a close second, with 27-31% reduction in cost.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...ream-how-millions-got-a-taste-for-going-vegan
A flexitarian diet, with low amounts of meat and dairy, reduced costs by 14%, but fish-based pescatarian diets actually increased costs by 2%. The study focused on whole foods and did not include highly processed meat replacements or eating at restaurants or takeaways.

“We think the fact that vegan, vegetarian and flexitarian diets can save you a lot of money is going to surprise people,” said Marco Springmann, at the University of Oxford, who led the second study. “When scientists like me advocate for healthy and environmentally-friendly eating it’s often said that we’re sitting in our ivory towers promoting something that is financially out of reach for most people. This study shows that it’s quite the opposite. These diets could be better for your bank balance as well as your health and the health of the planet.”

A recent survey for WWF found that more than 70% of Britons believed people should eat food that was better for the environment, but 65% said sustainable options were too expensive.

Current average diets in rich nations do not align with nutritional guidelines, with meat-eating higher than recommended levels. Both the new studies confirm previous work that healthy diets are also lower-emission diets.


 
  • Informative
Reactions: Figger Naggot
1) Good, lol.
2) How does that compare to the cost of shipping in the half a billion tonnes of shit they buy every year? Or thr cheap clothes they're addicted to?
3) Climate change looks to really only fuck with the 3rd world at worst. Which means I don't care and want them to all die.
4) Man made Climate change is also probably not real or anywhere near as severe as predicted
 
What a fucking joke.

Please, nobody pay attention to how practically every single thing western women voluntarily engage in revolves around the consumption of disposable luxury goods and other wastes of resources. Forget about the fashion, jewelry, and cosmetics industries, forget about the massive global consumption fueled by popular media, and especially forget about the industrialization of 'women's work', because the only defense these people have from the glut of humanity's consumption is the anti-logic required to think that XX separates them from it in any meaningful way.

Even as this article ignores all of the above hypocrisy, it also deludes itself out of responsibility for participating in everything it condemns.

Also, fuck you, beer-marinated denvers tonight.
 
Beef production produces much more waste than other forms of meat production. It is an outlier, because the ratio of feed required to produce a pound of food is exponentially higher than it is for chicken, turkey and to a lesser extent pork. I have read studies that have shown things like farmed salmon and poultry eggs were better for the environment than the mass production of soy due to the massive tracts of land required for soy production and its effect on soil quality. I have never seen a study that differentiated between chicken and beef or turkey and beef and come to the conclusion that chicken or turkey were environmentally unsustainable. I have seen ones that suggested eating chicken was not as efficent as eating plant-based foods, but not ones stating it was actually unsustainable.

If you take all the global warming shit at face value, it'd be a much easier to cut emissions related to food production by selling people on eating turkey burgers and using ground turkey in their cooking, or opting for a salmon plank on bbq night, because these are options your average person does not find repulsive and will be more receptive to. Instead they push soy and bugs because it's about politics and control, not science.

I know a lot of you guys roll your eyes at the idea of something being unsustainable. That's not the point. The point is even when you engage with them on their terms and take the idea that our current diet is unsustainable at face value, there is no scientific basis to tell people to stop eating chicken.

*Edit*

For reference here's a feed to meat chart that shows what I'm ranting about:
awfw-feed-conversion-efficiencies-1.jpg


Chicken is five times more efficent on a feed/edible weight basis plus a greater percentage of it is actual protein by weight. If you take the environmental arguments at face value, we can save the world by eating chicken instead of beef. Why aren't these people trying to convince us to switch to chcken?
 
Last edited:
That's nice.

Now, how much carbon goes into the atmosphere each year to get functionally-useless footwear from Taiwanese sweat shops to Amazon warehouses so you can be up to date on the current fashion trends?

You can at least eat 1/4 of ground beef and turn it into compost...... you can't eat a pair of women's pumps, or if you can, you won't get anything useful out of them.
 
Beef production produces much more waste than other forms of meat production. It is an outlier, because the ratio of feed required to produce a pound of food is exponentially higher than it is for chicken, turkey and to a lesser extent pork. I have read studies that have showen things like farmed salmon and poultry eggs was better for the environment than the mass production of soy due to the massive tracts of land required for soy production and its effect on soil quality. I have never seen a study that differentiated between chicken and beef or turkey and beef and come to the conclusion that chicken or turkey were environmentally unsustainable. I have seen ones that suggested eating chicken was not as efficent as eating other plant-based foods, but not ones stating it was actually unsustainable.

If you take all the global warming shit at face value, it'd be a much easier to cut emissions related to food production by selling people on eating turkey burgers and use ground turkey in their cooking, or opting for a salmon plank on bbq night. Instead they push soy and bugs because it's about politics not science.
Re: Farmed salmon - https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lans-river-trap-system-to-protect-wild-salmon

Norway almost exterminated their own wild salmon stocks, because they went overboard on salmon farming, which caused an explosion of sea lice. Sea lice apparently have no issues travelling hundreds of miles to find fish to feed on, and are essentially lethal to the fish, to the point that the fish looks like one of those translucent aquarium fish, because the parasite has sucked so much out of them.

Separately, while the clown that wrote this article is whining about "men's red meat habits", I continue to see absolutely zero recognition of the following:
  • women control ~80% of domestic spending, across the western world
  • women are the majority of online shoppers
  • online shopping sources the majority of its goods from "the economic south"
  • "the economic south" has essentially zero labor or environmental protections
  • that lack of environment protections is so pronounced that China is building coal plants faster than the west is shutting them down, to power their manufacturing for online shopping, and didn't stop making CFCs until they were caught red-handed 20 years after the global ban, because they give zero shits about anything that doesn't benefit China
That's not even accounting for the massive carbon debts required to create "renewable generation" (windmills, solar panels, the associated batteries), the human rights violations for same, or the carbon debts required to build EVs, which are all getting pushed by the same kinds of clown as the one that wrote this article. Meanwhile, I hear nothing but nonstop caterwauling about how all the little people need to stop doing basically everything, because it's ruining the environment.

Sure, I'm willing to buy into some better environmental stewardship, right as soon as I stop seeing 30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND) bureaucrats flying to Glasgow or Dublin or wherever, to discuss their latest environmental plans, and I see Greta Thunberg actually trying to square off with China, over it's domestic pollution, and the economic imperialism it's engaging in throughout Africa, which is leading to massive pollution and human rights violations, there. Until then, I'll keep eating steak.
 
Re: Farmed salmon - https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lans-river-trap-system-to-protect-wild-salmon

Norway almost exterminated their own wild salmon stocks, because they went overboard on salmon farming, which caused an explosion of sea lice. Sea lice apparently have no issues travelling hundreds of miles to find fish to feed on, and are essentially lethal to the fish, to the point that the fish looks like one of those translucent aquarium fish, because the parasite has sucked so much out of them.
Studies have shown that most of these risks can be mitigated through the use of on-land contained salmon farms, while still maintaining a high degree of efficiency compared to other protein sources long-term.
 
Back