New plant-focused diet would 'transform' planet's future, say scientists

[lordsummerisle]

theguardian.com

The first science-based diet that tackles both the poor food eaten by billions of people and averts global environmental catastrophe has been devised. It requires huge cuts in red meat-eating in western countries and radical changes across the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/new-plant-focused-diet-would-transform-planets-future-say-scientists

[democratisphere]

1. I continue to migrate toward the elimination of all meats from my diet.

[Zoonart]

3. Good for you.

It's a process, buy it is good for the earth and really good for your body. I have been a vegetarian for 45 years and at 65... everyone thinks I'm 50.
Also. I am in great health and take NO medications.

My brother and sister-in-law, my cousins, all similar ages have relentlessly teased me about being a vegetarian...but I have none of their myriad health issues.

I was vegan for a while... but have added an egg in the morning back into my diet, because I like the shot of pure protein to start my day.

Your diet is as flexible as you care to make it. Good luck and good health to you.... and the planet.

[wasupaloopa]

6. I gave up meat 25 years ago. I have never regretted it.

[JudyM]

2. This is an important read.

Would you consider posting in GD for wider audience?

[littlemissmartypants]

14. Things move so fast in GD it would probably be buried in an hour or less.

How about a cross post to the Health group?

[delisen]

4. Will animal tissues/organs grown in lab be ok? n/t

[hunter]

16. Barf.

Seriously.



I've got some association with the biotech industry, things like synthetic human insulin and Factor VII, miraculous stuff, saves lives...

... but in a perfect world we wouldn't need any of it, and I wouldn't want to eat the food equivalent.

I think corporations like https://www.beyondmeat.com/about (and others, this is not an advertisement) are doing a much better job of synthetic meat without hating yourself in the morning.

A long time ago I used to work in a place where the rabbit lab was one of the deeper circles of hell. Don't ask, don't tell. We kill cute bunnies here.

I don't imagine a meat growing lab would be any better, even if they had a yield of hundred tons of cow meat for every cow they killed.

[delisen]

19. No animals are killed in producing lab grown meat n/t

[zipplewrath]

5. How?

Globally, the diet requires red meat and sugar consumption to be cut by half, while vegetables, fruit, pulses and nuts must double. But in specific places the changes are stark. North Americans need to eat 84% less red meat but six times more beans and lentils. For Europeans, eating 77% less red meat and 15 times more nuts and seeds meets the guidelines.

Not sure we can even tax our way to this kind of change.

[The_jackalope]

7. Of course we can tax our way there

Look how well gasoline taxes have worked to cut global consumption after all...
[sarcasm]

People are incredibly resistant to forced changes to what they see as a birthright behaviour (like eating meat, burning gasoline and having children for example.)

As to how effective it would be for feeding a crowded world and helping to stabilize its growth, the example of Norman Borlaug should give us huge confidence.

Not.

[zipplewrath]

8. In europe it's worked pretty well

European taxes on gasoline worked pretty well over there to encourage efficiency and the use of public transport. Macron may have taken it a step too far of course.

[The_jackalope]

9. But their oil consumption hasn't declined as a result.

According to BP, Europeans consumed 16 MB per day in 1972, and 154 MB per day in 2017.

European CO2 production is similarly flat - 4280 MT in 1972, 4150 MT in 2017 with a modest 10% hump in between.

I don't think taxes work to decrease consumption. At best they just shift it around.

[zipplewrath]

10. Per capita

I'd be curious what the per capita numbers are. There's alot of population growth over that time.

[NickB79]

12. The planet's climate really doesn't care about per-capita numbers

Unless we're expecting large population declines in the next 10-20 years.

[zipplewrath]

13. Oh, I understand

But the question was whether taxes would encourage the reduction in oil consumption. That can only really be detected on a per capita basis.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Comparing the USA, and the 'big 4' European countries (Germany, France, UK and Italy)

since those were industrialised countries in 1972, and their combined population is the same order as the USA (a bit more in 1972, less in 2017).

USA (thousand barrels/day) 1972: 16381; 2017: 19880
Per capita 1972: 0.078; 2017: .061

Euro 4 (thousand barrels/day) 1972: 9315; 2017: 6907
Per capita 1972: 0.038; 2017: 0.025

So, per capita oil consumption went down in both areas; proportionally, more in Europe.

Figures (CO2 also available) from https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/excel/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-all-data.xlsx ; population figures from Google.

[zipplewrath]

18. Which suggests

This seems to suggest that European taxes on gasoline and other oil based products does have the effect of driving down consumption. Although, to the larger point, probably not enough to actually reduce total consumption since the population is growing.

[hunter]

15. When I'm Emperor of Earth I'll ban factory farm meat and dairy products.

Taxes are for the timid. These sorts of regressive taxes don't hurt the obscenely wealthy, only the powerless.

--sigh--

I like the other thread better.

It's got beer.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127122636

[Thyla]

11. How many hamberders a week is this?

Less than 2 and I'm not interested.