Beef is by far the most environmentally costly food most people can put on their plate, which is why choosing it over alternatives is such a telling signal. Per gram of protein, beef produces many times the greenhouse gas emissions of chicken, eggs, or legumes, mostly from cattle methane and from the forest cleared for pasture and feed. It also demands far more land and water than almost any other common food. These facts are widely published and easy to find, and cheaper, lower-impact options are available in nearly every grocery store. So when someone keeps choosing beef anyway, they are showing that the environmental cost isn’t a factor in their decision. Nobody has to be perfect, but picking the highest-impact option when better ones are easy to reach is a pretty clear statement of priorities.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 day ago

There is no additional warming because methane breaks down in the atmosphere eventually, so if we generate x quantity in 2026 and the same quantity in 2030, global warming will not increase. That does not mean that the stable amount of methane in the atmosphere right now is low and does not contribute to climate change. And if we consume more livestock due to an increase of population, the warming will increase. This is what i understand

  • source
  • parent