• NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    your ourworldindata link relies heavily on poore-nemecek, a paper I don’t trust at all. do you have another source?

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      We can look at individual foods themselves

      To produce 1 kg of protein from kidney beans required approximately eighteen times less land, ten times less water, nine times less fuel, twelve times less fertilizer and ten times less pesticide in comparison to producing 1 kg of protein from beef

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25374332/

      We can look at other modeling studies. Here’s a review of modeling studies

      Our review showed that reductions above 70% of GHG emissions and land use, and 50% of water use, could be achieved by shifting typical Western diets to more environmentally sustainable dietary patterns. Medians of these impacts across all studies [Including studies with just partial changes in consumption] suggest possible reductions of between 20–30%.

      https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0165797&emulatemode=2

      We can also look at some specific modeling studies in specific countries. Numbers will slightly different from global picture since it is going to vary based on how much animal products are consumed there

      For instance, here’s one looking at France in particular

      Vegans’ diet emitted 78% less GHG, required 53% less energy and 67% less land occupation than omnivorous’ diet. These results are in line with several recent works documenting associations between dietary patterns and a set of environmental impacts (GHG emissions, land occupation, and water use) in modelled and observed data (8,10,20)

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352550919304920

      Here’s another study modeling for Romania in particular (though does indirectly use some from numbers from Poore, Nemecek). Romania consumes roughly half per capita as somewhere like the US and still sees quite high reductions with removing all animal products

      With the reduction of 100% [of animal products in diets], the largest decrease is observed, equaling a total of 11,131,127 ha, reducing land use by 733,898 ha compared to the 50% scenario and by a total of 1,067,443 ha compared to the baseline. This represents almost the cumulative UAA of two large-sized counties in Romania, Arad and Timis

      https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11722955/

      • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Environmental impact data using life cycle analysis (LCA) often do not include measures of variance, and therefore the reviewed studies did not provide confidence intervals for environmental impacts.

        this is exactly my problem with poore-nemecek 2018. this analysis, unlike poore-nemecek, admits that it’s a major gap in the methodology, but still suffers from this gap.

      • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Primary source data were collected and applied to commodity production statistics to calculate the indices required to compare the environmental impact of producing 1 kg of edible protein from kidney beans, almonds, eggs, chicken and beef. Inputs included land and water for raising animals and growing animal feed, total fuel, and total fertilizer and pesticide for growing the plant commodities and animal feed. Animal waste generated was computed for the animal commodities.

        the actual data isn’t exposed in this link. do you have the full paper?