[symlock]

This headline is incorrect for how little is actually measured in this study. It's like staying that rammed earth houses are bad for the environment because they use more dirt that otherwise might be growing plants - so everyone should build with lumber instead.

They invented a new metric called "Carbon Opportunity Cost" and only looked at one thing: some types of organic farming require more land area which might be otherwise left for forest.

There are so many things that go into farming and a true evaluation of "climate" impact. Synthetic chemical production, environmental contamination, soil depletion, shipping, chemical runoff, farming equipment production and emissions, etc...

Even the researcher understands this: "The type of food is often much more important. For example, eating organic beans or organic chicken is much better for the climate than to eat conventionally produced beef"

[techbio]

> "The type of food is often much more important. For example, eating organic beans or organic chicken is much better for the climate than to eat conventionally produced beef"

There's something strange about that quote, maybe a PR sound? I imagine conventionally produced beans and chicken would have less impact than organic beef as well.

[burfog]

Maybe the chicken is better than the beef, but the beans are more questionable. Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas.