To say that being a vegan is no better for the environment than being a meat eater?

[OnlyInYourDreams]

Unless you eat only home grown, locally sourced products?

Obviously some people are vegan because they don’t like the idea of using any kind of animal products. But all too often people say that they’re vegan because “it’s better for the environment when this is categorically not the case.

Lots of fruit/veg have to be imported which is actually worse for the environment because it involves pumping man-made substances into the environment.

Products like almond milk are terrible for the environment because e.g. it takes 1600l of water to produce 1l of almond milk. Coca-Cola is practically a green product in comparison…

If people want to be vegan, why not just say you want to be vegan. Coming up with reasons such as “it’s better for the environment” which are just rubbish and laughable is only going to increase the amount of people who don’t take vegans seriously.

What you have done there is cherry-picked some facts and used them to draw a conclusion which is wrong.

Growing food to feed to animals bred for meat is a lot less ecologically friendly than just eating the food! It would take less land, less energy, less water and feed more people.

Some vegans do drink almond milk and eat imported blueberries. So do some non-vegans. And a lot of meat is imported as well! It's not the case that meat-eaters only eat grass-fed cattle raised on their local farm, even if you do it's not what the majority of meat-eaters in the UK do.

It depends on how the meat is reared - cows are great at turning stuff we can't eat (grass, crop residues) into high-quality protein, and there is research that has shown that well-managed grassland captures carbon in the soil.

The GHC calculations also depend on what's included. Notoriously, one of the studies that made meat look really bad included everything in the meat production cycle all the way to the plate, but for vehicles they left out the massive carbon cost of manufacture.

The National Farmers' Union is pushing for UK farming to be carbon neutral by 2040.

The elephant in the room is the burning of fossil fuels.

@Orangesand yes, my thoughts exactly. Bored of vegan bashing to be honest

@FTEngineerM
Your logic only works if as a human race we take all animals from the wild, which isn’t the case.

Wrong.

The elephant in the room is the burning of fossil fuels.

mmmmm, elephant.

A recent study on veganism found that the more fruit the vegan ate, the closer it got to omnivore diet in environmental impact, and in fact the worst diet for environment impact was a pure fruitarian diet.

Of course YABVU

Beyond that, wanting to belittle other's choices and claim moral superiority is silly and pointless

I'm sure that it would be very comforting and validating to assume that people are only saying that veganism is less damaging to the environment than meat eating because they want to belittle other's choices and claim moral superiority. The only problem with that is that lots of the people arguing this are not actually vegan.

Many of us know that we probably should be vegan, but for whatever reason, we haven't (so far) made that switch. So how is that trying to belittle anyone or claim anything?

Making the changes that are needed to address the climate issue is not going to be easy for any of us, but pretending that we don't need to change is not the solution.

I'm not gatekeeping, but it is important to acknowledge that Veganism is a philosophical belief about not using animals as a commodity

Surely anyone who identifies as vegan is vegan?

[quote Rollercoaster21]@Orangesand yes, my thoughts exactly. Bored of vegan bashing to be honest[/quote]
People always make jokes about vegans going on and on about their beliefs but I have never witnessed or done this. If anything, it's the 'meat and two veg' lovers who will try and provoke a reaction by saying stuff like 'I love a nice and bloody rare steak'. I see comments like that on any vegan article.

Vegans get such a hard time but the truth i think most vegans just care about animals and want to do their bit in reducing factory farm suffering etc. That should be seen as a good thing. It's sad that it's not.

Animal agricultural accounts for 14% of global ghg emissions (roughly the same as all transport). Non-animal agriculture(have forgotten the correct term for it now), forestry and all other land use accounts for around 11%. So you're as wrong as a wrong thing can be.

That's not to say certain plant based items aren't also bad for the environment too.

"or your long term health*
If it was better for our long-term health, how come we have evolved eating meat for millennia?

There is evidence that a vegan diet isn't great for bone health.

I think that you’re right that some vegans will say it’s due to environmental concerns and then not look at all at the rest of their diet, which to me seems odd if their main concern is the environment.
DH has a friend who is vegan for environmental reasons, and he also doesn’t eat a selection of other foods because they also damage the environment (I think rice is one, but could be wrong). He put a huge amount of thought and effort into researching his diet from an environmental perspective and actually has zero interest in animal welfare. (I say zero, he doesn’t go round kicking puppies, but he’s not more interested in it than the average meat eater).

That’s where the vegan calculations go wrong. It is vegan philosophy is it not to not harm animals? To let them live peacefully for full natural lifespan? So why is this not included in comparisons?

I’ll tell you because actually leaving a pig to live it’s full 15yrs takes more land, food, water than raising it for two years and slaughtering it.

So the “scientific studies” are clear pulling fast one by calculating the land, food, water to raise a pig to slaughter and comparing it to zero...nothing....no pig existing.

This would only be accurate if the vegan philosophy were that humans are the only animals that deserve to be alive and we should just drive pigs to extinction and live off plant based foods.

The friend of mine who is vegan is actually in favour of the wholesale slaughter of 99% of all the cows on the planet for this reason.
But your logic isn’t right, because of course the number of those animals would reduce if demand for meat lessened. Fewer would be bred.

Products like almond milk are terrible for the environment because e.g. it takes 1600l of water to produce 1l of almond milk.

It takes between 5,000 and 20,000 litres of water to produce 1kg of beef....

I'm sure that it would be very comforting and validating to assume that people are only saying that veganism is less damaging to the environment than meat eating because they want to belittle other's choices and claim moral superiority.

Not sure why you assume only vegans would do that? My hope that posters generally might not do that has nothing to do with a need for validation- I'm not arguing any particular point and I don't care either way.

I don't think there is anything wrong with an interesting discussion about the relative environmental choices of different foodstuffs and farming techniques. I just don't see why it automatically follows that there must be a bunfight where everyone who doesn't [insert preferrence here] is a monster.

@Rosieposy89

Not to be picky but Veganism isn't about the environment anyway, it's the ethical belief that animals should not be exploited for our benefit. If you're 'vegan' for the environment, you're plant based. Veganism is specifically about the animals.

Of course it is! But when it's framed as a purely subjective ethical choice People are free to agree or disagree as they will. Arguments for veganism tend to paint it as an objectively rational choice based on health, cost and environment. This makes omnivores feel like they're being preached at from a pulpit. And, in reality, a strict vegan diet does not involve always making the healthiest, most sustainable or cost-effective choice, so the congregation use the hypocrisy so set fire to the soapbox.

Products like almond milk are terrible for the environment because e.g. it takes 1600l of water to produce 1l of almond milk.

Almond milk is worse than other plant milks, environmentally speaking - but it's still a lot better than cows milk

www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042

Not sure why you assume only vegans would do that? My hope that posters generally might not do that has nothing to do with a need for validation- I'm not arguing any particular point and I don't care either way.

Because it's literally not possible for non-vegans to claim moral superiority with regard to the question of veganism? Because, er, they're not vegan?!

If I haven't made the choice to be vegan myself, I'm clearly not in a position to belittle the choices of others who are also not vegan? I think that's common sense, really, so I'm a bit puzzled about the point that you're trying to make.

It's too easy to dismiss the arguments as evidence of people being smug or self satisfied, but that is missing the point.

Yes. You could say that. A few things will happen

1. Vegans and vegetarians will tell you that you are wrong andf they can show you proper studies that support this

1. Non or ex vegans and vegetarians will tell you that you can and there are some proper studies that support this

1. Boring old farts will tell you that you could indeed say that but that, despite all of the studies, ongoing and extant, there is no global modelling system that can provide a more certain answer - though that is in the pipeline.

What is certain that neither of the first 2 statements are wholly true or false.

I'm also concerned about the almond growing industry and its repercussions on water distribution and depletion .

@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman

"or your long term health* If it was better for our long-term health, how come we have evolved eating meat for millennia?

There is evidence that a vegan diet isn't great for bone health.

A plant based diet is recommended for people with some heart conditions. Switching to plant based can actually reverse heart disease (there's even a specific cookbook for it if you google). I know this because my husband has a heart condition and he has switched to plant based.

YANBU only because as a veggie of 20+ years I am pissed off by the recent vegan trend making it actually quite difficult to get food other than processed vegan fake meat in many places now. If more restaurants used actual vegetables for their now merged vegan/vegetarian menu I’d be happier but many places we’d go to for a quick bite are now fake meat. We have a vegan takeaway nearby, they have no food that isn’t fake meat other than the chips!!! Outrageous and i now hate vegans for ruining my life!

What always puzzles me is how vegan people don’t think about how their veg are fertilised with by-products of the meat industry. You may only eat veg, but your veg has been eating blood-fish-and-bone fertiliser.

All the studies about cattle emissions fail to mention a very clear difference between biogenic methane (from cattle) and co2 from fossil fuels and others fuels

You can read more here clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why-methane-cattle-warms-climate-differently-co2-fossil-fuels

In summary, cattle emissions break down after 12 years, totally, and also the source of these emissions are from the eco system already and are therefore essentially neutral. Fossil fuels are not. They also remain in the atmosphere for 100+ years.

The whole thing has been simplified to such a point as to lose the reality. Yes, cattle emit gases, but not with the same impact as a fossil fuel.

This would only be accurate if the vegan philosophy were that humans are the only animals that deserve to be alive and we should just drive pigs to extinction and live off plant based foods.

Umm just to add to the many gaping flaws in your argument, I'd like to point out that many species of pig live perfectly well in the wild. That's why the studies don't mention pig extinction 

So no you don't have to drive the argument to the ludicrous point of pig extinction to try and make it work. And the millions of domestics pigs wouldn't be living for 15 years in their millions if people stopped buying pork. They wouldn't be bred in the first place. I assume you're aware that most pig reproduction is already artificial @PlanDeRaccordement

So you can deny science all you like, doesn't make us less valid