@BettyBurntBuns I’ll call it what I want, as per the Cambridge English Dictionary:
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/milk
“ the liquid made from some plants and trees or their nuts, etc.:
coconut milk
plant-based alternatives to dairy such as almond or hazelnut milk”
Also oat milk doesn’t just have “calories”, if it’s home made it has at least carbs, fat, protein, fibre, calcium and iron in varying proportions and shop bought varieties also often have added vitamins and other minerals. Soya milk has a very similar protein content to cows milk but less fat.
So you have no sources to back up your claim that cows milk is better for the environment then?
Data on the impact of cows milk vs plant based options:
eatforum.org/content/uploads/2019/01/EAT-Lancet_Commission_Summary_Report.pdf
“However, even small increases in the con- sumption of red meat or dairy foods would make this goal difficult or impossible to achieve. The analysis shows that staying within the safe operating space for food systems requires a combination of substantial shifts toward mostly plant-based dietary patterns,”
science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987
“We find that the impacts of the lowest-impact animal products exceed average impacts of substitute vegetable proteins across GHG emissions, eutrophication, acidification (excluding nuts), and frequently land use (Fig. 1 and data S2).”
And as to why grazing systems are environmentally problematic:
www.tabledebates.org/node/12335
This report finds that better management of grass-fed livestock, while worthwhile in and of itself, does not offer a significant solution to climate change as only under very specific conditions can they help sequester carbon. This sequestering of carbon is even then small, time-limited, reversible and substantially outweighed by the greenhouse gas emissions these grazing animals generate. The report concludes that although there can be other benefits to grazing livestock - solving climate change isn’t one of them.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/blow-for-grass-fed-beef-as-new-report-suggests-its-part-of-the-climate-problem-not-solution-36209259.html
But at an aggregate level the emissions generated by these grazing systems still outweigh the removals and even assuming improvements in productivity, they simply cannot supply us with all the animal protein we currently eat. They are even less able to provide us with the quantities of meat and milk that our growing and increasingly more affluent population apparently wants to consume. Significant expansion in overall numbers would cause catastrophic land use change and other environmental damage. This is especially the case if one adopts a very ‘pure’ definition of a grazing system, the sort that grazing advocates tend to portray, where livestock are reared year-round on grass that is not fertilised with mineral fertilisers, receiving no additional nutritional supplementation, and at stocking densities that support environmental goals.
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02673-x
“Grazing systems emit greenhouse gases, which can, under specific agro-ecological conditions, be partly or entirely offset by soil carbon sequestration. However, any sequestration is time-limited, reversible, and at a global level outweighed by emissions from grazing systems. Thus, grazing systems are globally a net contributor to climate change.”