If you are vegan for environmental reasons...

[drspouse]

What would you consider adding back into your diet that's an animal product?

I'm just doing a Vegan Lent at the moment but I think I probably want to try and be a bit more planet-friendly in my eating after this.
But for example we can get free range milk produced

Yup I just can’t be bothered responding to such idiotic whataboutery!

Soya milk produces 2.5 times less co2 emissions than dairy. Many dairy cattle will be fed grain including soya so you are getting it indirectly. Tetrapak can be recycled. Soya crops can be grown in Britain and some are. Oats can also be grown in the U.K.- oat milk. There is no question that for the environment plant milk is the better alternative but do we really need milk as adults at all?

I believe we should wean from breast milk in childhood, not move onto the breast milk of another animal. The separation of dairy calf and cow is abhorrent and the fact we then jump in to drink the now slaughtered calf’s food is bizarre.

Honey is not good for bees. Most people don’t know there are 20,000 bee species and only one is the honey bee. Honey production usually involves replacing the bees diet with a poor quality sugar syrup and killing the queen to avoid swarming.

What will actually help bees is re-wilding- instead of having cows in fields have wild fields full of wild flowers.

Someone said upthread we can’t grow protein sources in the U.K. or something similar- green leafy veg and broccoli are great sources of protein but we can of course grow beans and produce seeds and grains, all protein sources, in the U.K.

What will actually help bees is re-wilding- instead of having cows in fields have wild fields full of wild flowers.

I don't think that's what would become of the current farmers fields though. The countryside would likely be developed I worry.

Andijustknew - exactly! who is going to pay for these wild fields?

...actually, the EU has paid farmers to 'set aside' land i.e. Not farm it.

Also, some farmers/landowners have been finding other ways of making money from their land whilst also supporting wildlife eg the increasing number of solar farms.

Yes. Big bad farmers have done this. They already do great conversation work. What do you think will happen to the countryside if all farmers go out of business?

Yes, well that’s a question grounded in reality isn’t it? Because

a) everyone in the UK is going to go vegan, and not even gradually- overnight probably!
b) we won’t need crops for anything at all.

I do wonder if you actually thought about that question andijustknew

I'm simply pointing out that it's not as simple as saying 'vegan = good' without considering potential knock on effects.
And when you do, it being dismissed as whataboutery.

And it's about as grounded in reality as farmers fields being replaced with fields of wildflowers for bees to live in!

Yes, I do dismiss it as ‘whataboutery’ because it’s a hypothetical situation that has 0 chance of being reality. Your thinking is very black and white. Change is nearly always a gradual thing, and people/businesses adapt according to conditions at the time.

Every action produces a reaction. Environmentally, the negative impact of eating meat/ drinking milk far, far outweighs the negative impact of being vegan.

Well ok fair enough. For me it doesn't.

Well for example a lot of Scottish farmland for animal agriculture is being turned into forests through forestry grants. Personally I’d like the world to still be here for my great grandchildren and so if that means doing our best for the bees and the government setting up grants to make sure that happens then I hope it will.

And btw I don’t want all farmers gone I just hope they will move to arable farming where possibly (where not then rewilding or forestry grants). Right now the vegan society gives support to help animal farmers to change to arable farming, a lot of vegans would happily make donations so there was a fund to help make this happen (I actually think the vegan society may give financial support).

So actually I think this is all quite grounded in reality, as dangermouse says we can all do our bit for bees too by planting her fridndly flowers.

But my key point seems to have been missed anyway. Someone upthread said would buying honey help bees and the answer is no.

Andijustnew “What do you think will happen to the countryside if all farmers go out of business?”

Well they won’t, we need arable farmers. And of course some land rewilded via grants.

You say for you veganism isn’t the most environmentally friendly way to live but (as long as you’re being sensible and not eating a 100% avocado and exotic fruit diet) it unquestionably and factually is the best lifestyle for the environment. And the OP was asking if it would be better for the environment if she ate some animal products and the answer is no.

If you look carefully, some small, local bee keepers are working hard to improve conditions for bees, and only take honey in a way that doesn't hurt their bees.

Clara I’m not sure there’s a way to avoid transporting queens, clipping wings or killing queens to prevent swarming in bee keeping: I have looked. But either way even if the honey causes no harm buying it is still not good for the environment, you want to support native bees instead of allowing honey bees to over compete with them for limited resources.

I'd separate those out into:
Killing queens- cruelty objection
Displacing native bees - environmental objection

Recycling always comes way down below reusing or not using in the first place (life and stuff gets in the way of making my own plant milk, however).

Logic Fail. I don't know who thread is addressing.

According to the British vegan society you can't be vegan for environmental reasons. You can only call yourself vegan if how you eat is for reasons of wanting to not exploit animals.

I'm not making this up; look at their definition. It's why everyone assumes people only eat like vegans because they are animal rights extremists. I guess you can add environmental issues to your list of perceived benefits, but avoiding animal cruelty has to head the list of 'Why' or you don't get to use the label.

Good luck if you want to try to broaden the church. I guess it depends on how you perceive the word 'exploit'. I doubt you'll be successful.

The point about killing the queen was in response to someone saying beekeepers are trying to improve conditions for bees. I have acknowledged that’s not the point of the thread but others have brought it back to that.

I’m vegan for ethical reasons (yes the only way you can technically be vegan) but if someone is avoiding animal products for environmental reasons then that’s a valid reason to avoid them as animal agriculture is horrendous for the environment. I often find that often once someone isn’t using products for health or environmental reasons they are more open to recognising that veganism is the only logical and moral choice if we accept that it’s wrong to harm animals. It’s harder to accept that it’s wrong when you’re still participating in the harm.

I agree Dr spouse it should be reduce, reuse, recycle but even with the problems of the carton and the transport plant milks still generate less greenhouse gasses than dairy. The best you could do would be home made oat milk from local oats, I’ve heard it’s quite easy and you could make a big batch and freeze some. No reason why in the future oat and soya milk couldn’t be made in the U.K. and in reusable bottles and that’s maybe something to approach companies about.

lljkk When the first vegans first tried to define their principles the world was a different place. Farming practices were different, and the environmental movement was in its infancy, if it existed at all.

These days there are lots of people who identify as vegans for lots of different reasons. The word "vegan" has entered the mainstream, and has several different definitions in common usage. The word was coined by the vegan society in the 1940s but the definition is a bit broader these days.

You probably already know this, but have been annoyed by some vegans at some point, so have decided to be irate about the pedantry of the vegan society. There are lots of people who don't eat animal products, consider themselves vegan, and are not annoying; you probably don't even know these people are vegan.

I forgot to comment on free range eggs- unless they are backyard hens almost no chickens are truly free range.

But actually free range eggs and backyard hen eggs are worse for the environment as the chickens that produce them need to be fed 18% more grain than battery hens to produce the same amount of eggs. Organic eggs are worse again.

Overall eggs still produce significantly more greenhouse gases than fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and pulses.

If it would make people happier then I'll say "people who don't eat animal products" rather than "vegan" but anyway, the reason I decided to have a vegan Lent was for environmental reasons.
It would be great to be able to see e.g. the cradle to grave CO2 production of all foods (I'm sure there are good and bad soya products).

www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/your-kitchen-and-the-planet-the-impact-of-our-food-on-the-environment

I think gmo soya is usually seen as worse probably for a number of reasons including because it has inbuilt insecticide. Almost all gmo soya (indeed the vast majority of soya in general) is fed to animals and most for human consumption is non gmo.

kiki That's very interesting. It doesn't include retail, but cow's milk is better than rice and greenhouse veg (e.g. the tomatoes we had today).
So it's a no for rice milk (we can't use it for DD anyway so I haven't tried it) and I'm pretty sure I'll be going back to our local free range milk.