180
Vegan Diets Cut Emissions, Water Pollution and Land Use by 75%, Major Study Finds
(www.ecowatch.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
180 points (100.0% liked)
Science
13024 readers
133 users here now
Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Biggest step up would probably be for vertical farming to go mainstream. It's not too great for meat industry, but for vegan industry it works more than well.
Another step up will be mass produced lab grown animal proteins/oils/fats (meats) which a healthy human diet requires. On other hand we can still also have a remnant of meat industry be left alive, which is to repurpose animals that have died of natural causes, rather than inhumanely farming animals enmasse.
I mean we don't need animal proteins for a healthy human diet...
B12s and similar are a bigger issue IIRC. Plants have the exact same proteins all life does, just not necessarily in the right amino acid proportions for humans. If you're not eating all one staple like a peasant you're probably not going to get seriously protein deficient, although it's harder to get enough to build muscle.
I've been vegan for years and will tell you it's incredibly easy to get the amount of protein in. Plus like with an omni diet most packaged foods are fortified for vitamins.
Good to know. I've been ovo-lacto so I've never worried about it.
From what I've seen veganism isn't so good for actually bodybuilding, but let's be honest, the exercise is the bigger barrier for 99% of people. Maintaining a flabby Westerner body isn't biologically hard.
100g of wheat gluten is almost 80g of protein. Which easily provides the amino-acids most legumes have in lower concentrations. Besides seitan which is very easy to make from wheat gluten, tofu, tempeh and many other plant based (and really easy and cheap to prepare on your own, in large quantities and store in the freezer, I have a drawer in mine full of them) foods in some traditions that are even low in carb content for people with insulin resistance. Or just low in calories so you can cook them whichever way you want with whatever else you want to add to your food. It's not really hard to actually do it.
Being "not flabby" has more to do with your understanding of how insulin works on the body than it has with anything else, even activity levels. Especially in western societies. And its pretty damn hard to think properly about your food, even though its scientifically clear those in charge are pushing shitty guidelines to the people. For example, as you can see here :
Some don't need the carbs though and that's not as easy as getting the proper amount and kind of aminoacids when going completely plant based. If you have the time you might find this interesting.. The number of people that have a messed up body when it comes to carbs, is beyond impressive.
I am commenting on the "healthy" aspect. Healthy, sometimes is not just about adequate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346522135_An_Expanded_Genetic_Code_Enables_Trimethylamine_Metabolism_in_Human_Gut_Bacteria
And what does this have to do with my previous point?
Basically the study found that previous research on TMA's (which are abundous in animal protein) saying they're harmful to humans, may actually be wrong, and that they're in fact beneficial to our health. (edit 2: due to rapid bilophia production in the microbiome, which converts it to DMA?)
I'm not a microbiologist though, and I hope someone with background could expand this into an ELI5.
Edit: If you scroll down on the page, you can find a figure (FIG 1) which gives a more easy to understand view on the study and the impacts animal proteins were found to have.
I still don't understand the economics of vertical farming. Isn't that a lot of extra infrastructure to produce the same plants? What area of solar panels do you need to power an acre-equivalent production of vertical crops?
The biggest step up would be changing consumer preferences and maybe different regulation (tighter animal welfare laws, emissions standards and/or removing any subsidies for animal agriculture).
Consider this: You can install a massive local vertical farm directly inside a large city, but you can't do the same for normal farming. Thus severely reducing the economic/ecological costs of farming, because you can supply locally produced veggies directly into stores, rather than needing to haul them for 50-1000km away.
And stuff like: You can grow plants 24/7 with no breaks as it's all automated. You can adjust the "climate" just right for whatever plant you're growing. You're not using massive plots of land that could for example be used for housing, and leaking fertilizer/pesticides to the soil/rivers/lakes/sea. You're not wasting a ton of energy by using combustion based machinery, and also not causing more pollution. In general the energy required for vertical farming can be done entirely by solar.
That makes sense. I guess what I'm hoping for is a breakdown of the exact costs and footprints involves, at least in estimation. Like, less shipping is great, but a solar farm plus a factory-greenhouse is not a small investment, and the solar farm can't be made vertical, which will cut down on the area savings at least somewhat.
I get why everyone goes for leafy greens, since I've experienced sad Canadian winter lettuce. I've also heard it's a bad choice, somehow, and a lot of startups have failed as a result.
Well you can repurpose a lot of what used to be large farmlands and install large solar farms there, potentially grow some plants in the solar panels shadows as well. Win-win situation.
Consider this: the sun already provides all the energy required to grow plants, and healthy soils provide the required nutrients. Plants can already harvest solar energy, that's kinda their whole thing.
Your model requires synthetic nutrients and synthetic sunlight. Producing and maintaining solar panels and the associated infrastructure is not environmentally benign, particularly if as you suggest in your other comment you would want to install solar arrays on former farmland.
How about instead we grow plants properly, in ecosystemically responsible ways that promote soil health, which is directly connected to our health via our gut microbiome. Growing sterile plants in a controlled environment is not an ecological solution at all, it's a sterile solution.
Our agricultural system isn't in need of high-tech solutions. High-tech solutions is exactly what has been fucking agriculture up for the past seventy years.
It doesn't require synthetic nutrients actually, but it does require synthetic sunlight: which is fine, actually.
The solar panels needed are beneficial to everyone involved. They provide electricity to locals, they help plants combat climate change by providing much needed cover from direct sunlight which these days can completely ruin your crops.
The point isn't to make all former farmland SOLELY solar panels. It's to help the crops/plants themselves grow better under the shade of the panels.
Sustainable farming is absolutely still a requirement in the future.
Vertical farming is to supplement the needed gaps in farming, like installing them inside cities so certain plants/crops can be served 1. Much faster, 2. In a much greener state, and 3. Direct-to-store which heavily reduces pollution potential from having to haul it from really long distances away, and in many cases, requiring refrigeration to keep the shipments cool, further polluting the planet.