|
|
|
|
|
|
by emmanuel_1234
1165 days ago
|
|
|
Reading the article, I thought that it was not relevant to compare carbon footprint per unit of mass, and I was pleased to see it was addressed in the last section. However, the way it's addressed feels even more disingenuous: they removed all the non protein-rich food from the chart. Naturally, mostly animal products remain at the top. Based on the assumption that humans need protein[0], it seems only fair to compare everything we eat on a carbon-cost / protein-value basis without cherry-picking the data points. It's here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab... A few observations:
- coffee and chocolate are very high up. To be fair, nobody assumes that those have any kind of nutritional value, and that's not why they are consumed.
- beef and lamb are very high. It implies that, even in the most charitable light, lamb and beef are bad in terms of carbon emission[1].
- among non-animal products, tomatoes, cassava and bananas are surprisingly high up. Higher than a lot of animal products. Now that is relevant, because those are consumed for their actual nutritional value. Rice, a staple all around the world, is worse than farmed fish, or eggs!
- wheat and nuts have an amazing carbon-cost/nutritional value ratio. [0] and fat, there are no essentials carbs.
[1] and that makes me sad because I love both. |
|
|
and for proteins & fat, maybe I'm not human, or maybe rice have enough for me, but I don't eat animal food more than a few times a year, rest of the time I eat rice and plenty vegetables, so that's just to put a nuance on the "you need a daily meat intake" common falsy recommandation