this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
101 points (82.6% liked)

Cool Guides

4560 readers
87 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Food and agriculture have a significant impact on our planet, particularly in terms of carbon emissions, water withdrawals, and land use.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It makes the exception for land use change for chocolate, but isn't almost all agricultural land a land use change which contributes? Most soybean and other crops aren't as effective at sequestering carbon as the natural grasslands they took over. Orchards and other crops also took over forests and turned them into pastures and fields.

[–] Juujian@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

It's informative, but 1kg of beef and 1kg of coffee beans is not a meaningful comparison :D

[–] torknorggren@lemm.ee 15 points 10 months ago

The absence of palm oil--or any cooking oil--is pretty dubious.

[–] Piers@beehaw.org 13 points 10 months ago

While it's not perfect I think emissions per calorie is a better measurement than emissions per kg (even more importantly for making comparisons of water usage.)

[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (17 children)

This infographic brought to you by the oil industry™

Please focus on this infographic and curbing your own satisfaction, so we can continue to be the biggest polluter AND make money hand over fist.

[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I mean not really.

Live stock accounts for 60% of land usage, but only 2% of calories consumed. Much of that land is growing feed for cattle. They eat millions more calories in grain than is harvested.

Meat is just such a luxury with how many resources it uses. Like the world doesn't have enough space for everyone to eat meat like the US does.

It also feels very cruel to grow so much feed for cows when people are starving.

But people love Meat and have it part of their culture so people won't stop no matter what.

So fingers crossed for lab grown meat so this debate can just vanish.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] MechanicalJester@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This can be misleading. For instance: raising dairy cattle in lush and water rich areas with no or limited dependency on fossil water is very different than dairy cattle being raised in the desert with 90% of the food being trucked in and the cheese also being made in the desert using extremely limited fresh water.

Beef is certainly super high impact, generally but how we go about it super matters.

[–] Tywele@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Does it really make that much difference if 70% of grown plants globally are fed to animals?

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

70% of grown plants globally are fed to animals

they're not.

[–] MechanicalJester@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Seems like a weasel-y statement. Grass is a plant. Growing grass in places where it just grows itself and the animals eat it directly is disimilar to hauling grown, fertilized herbicide treated, insecticide treated, harvested, processed, trucked grains to feed animals.

The environmental impacts are wildly different.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If fish and prawn use so much water, we should figure out how to raise them aeroponically.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It excludes the fact that animal-based farming contributes greatly to water pollution, too.

[–] inasaba@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The original study does show water pollution, even going so far as to split it between acidification and eutrophication.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Good find. Yes, the original study accounts for water pollution, but this chart (conveniently) excludes it.

When you include the water pollution, the impact to the environment are FAR, FAR worse than this chart suggests.

[–] inasaba@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it's really an "exclusion" to show the relative carbon impacts. A more comprehensive infographic could certainly be made, but there's nothing wrong with a simple one that focuses on a specific topic.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

I guess that depends on the definition of “environmental impact”, but you're right about nothing wrong with focusing on a specific topic. 👌

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Methane with cow-based agriculture too

[–] Arystique@beehaw.org 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Lets focus on billonaires using their luxury private jets first then we can worry about going after things that feed people

[–] Tywele@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Why not both? This is something that each individual can change by themselves. And it's not hard.

[–] Arystique@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

Mainy due to the fact that when trying to stop agriculture or food production it puts the blame on indivisuals who can't afford to change their habits or lifestyles i do know that some are able to change and live differently however those changes for others can lead to large amounts of stress, normally people will correlate the stress of this change to the idea of climate change which causes them to reject the idea of it completely (think of the most stubborn person you know and what they would do if you told them to not do something because of a thing they can't immediately see)

The reason i say that going after billionaires and their jets is more important is because its something that a large amount of people can agree with which means that we can get momentum on that movement better, itll cause stress to less people which means less pushback and the amount of pollution that comes from their jets is absolutely massive like its insane how bad iirc

This isn't saying that we shouldn't work on ways to make farming more ecofriendly (because more ecofriendly actually benefits everyone in the long run not just due to the effects on the environment but it also helps the food taste better and grow more) although it is saying that if we keep blaming individuals and their miniture actions itll just turn more people over to climate denialism

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] KaleDaddy@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"lets focus on this thing im not responsible for and wont do anything about so we dont have to focus on the thing my actions directly affect and I also wont do anything about "

[–] Arystique@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Nah lets focus on the thing so tiny that it wont do jack and let billonaires continue ruining the planet with their greed, that'll sure help.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] B0rax@feddit.de 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Does this include shipping? For example coffee does not grow in Europe and needs to be shipped. Even more so for fruits.

[–] inasaba@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago

The original study does include shipping. You can even see it divided out here.

[–] Trimatrix@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I get the point of the guide. However, it’s kind of funny and obvious the fish and prawns would be in the top 5 consumers of water. I would expect nothing less.

[–] baggins@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago

Why is soy not mentioned? Not all soy is turned into tofu.

[–] Bebo 3 points 10 months ago

I was like where the hell is chicken... then saw "poultry"

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Pork and chicken it is then!

[–] toxicbubble@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

truth is, veganism reduces the use of over 50% of farmland in the United States.

[–] CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Why/how does cheese use so much water?

[–] ShaggyBlarney@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm betting it correlates with the water consumption of dairy cows. I think they are using the whole production needs from nothing to final product.

[–] inasaba@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

This, and also a lot of milk is needed to make cheese.

[–] Piers@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

Because they are judging the water use by final weight and you make cheese by removing the water from milk.

load more comments
view more: next ›