196

255 grams per week. That's the short answer to how much meat you can eat without harming the planet. And that only applies to poultry and pork.

Beef cannot be eaten in meaningful quantities without exceeding planetary boundaries, according to an article published by a group of DTU researchers in the journal Nature Food. So says Caroline H. Gebara, postdoc at DTU Sustain and lead author of the study."

Our calculations show that even moderate amounts of red meat in one's diet are incompatible with what the planet can regenerate of resources based on the environmental factors we looked at in the study. However, there are many other diets—including ones with meat—that are both healthy and sustainable," she says.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago

This has been my rule of thumb for a while. It should be clear as day that 9 billion people cannot all chow on hefty ruminant mammals. We would run out of land even before it cooked the climate.

The problem with chicken farming is the cruelty.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 5 points 6 days ago

No, its also the environmental impact. We passed 350 ppm.

The article is nonsense because it must be zero. We're already in a positive feedback loop. We have to reduce all emissions to zero to mitigate as much as possible. There is no amount of emissions that are acceptable.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Yes but that logic changes the goalposts a bit. The question of how to undo existing damage, or what we should do ethically, is not the same as the question of what is theoretically sustainable.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago

If you’re only eating two breasts a week, people can spring for the free range stuff

[-] wordcraeft@slrpnk.net 12 points 6 days ago

The article barely touches on fish. It suggests fish, eggs, and dairy are mostly fine, but doesn't explicitly say that.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 10 points 6 days ago

Dairy has the same problems as beef. Remember, you also have to grow food to feed the food, so it's inherently a net loss of calories.

load more comments (1 replies)

Has any society in human history been able to afford eating meat regularly? My great great great great grandfather’s journals talk about a lot of stew and veggies and he was wealthy enough that he founded a small city. We never ate that much meat.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Typically we don't need to eat meat when we are wealthy; we eat unsustainable meat when there is a famine because we must.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 4 points 6 days ago

Subsidies and very, very cruel industrialization (torturous conditions).

If laws were just and corporate socialism was just, it wouldn't be possible for most people.

Yes, Inuit for example have a diet largely based on fish and meat. Steppe herders like mongols are another example of a culture with regular meat consumption.

Medieval Barcelona had a higher meat consumption than today. The article also gives other examples of high meat consumption from medieval England and Vikings.

[-] Allero@lemmy.today 7 points 6 days ago

The most important part: what went into the calculation? There are plenty of things besides food that impact environmental sustainability, is diet alone sufficient to achieve it? Or did they just throw the rest out?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
196 points (90.8% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

6465 readers
290 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS