{"id":12184,"date":"2020-03-12T08:00:16","date_gmt":"2020-03-12T06:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.carnisostenibili.it\/?p=12184"},"modified":"2020-03-11T18:12:49","modified_gmt":"2020-03-11T16:12:49","slug":"if-i-dont-eat-meat-am-i-more-sustainable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.carnisostenibili.it\/en\/if-i-dont-eat-meat-am-i-more-sustainable\/","title":{"rendered":"If I don’t eat meat, am I more sustainable?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Excluding meat from diet is a non-scientifically justified choice. If made for environmental reasons, it must be contextualized in a broader set of behaviours.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

“I don’t eat meat for environmental reasons<\/strong>.” Do you have a friend who replied like that to a barbecue invitation and asked for a veggie burger<\/em>? Not consuming meat<\/strong> is a very impactful choice on the lifestyle<\/strong> and health<\/strong> of an individual and, if extended to the community, on the gastronomic economy<\/strong> and on the conservation of the typical elements of a people’s tradition<\/strong>. A choice that is not scientifically justified and that in any case, if made for environmental reasons, must be contextualized<\/strong> in a broader set of behaviours.<\/p>\n

We make numerous trips by car<\/strong> when we can travel by bicycle or on foot, we use purchase packaging<\/strong> in plastic or non-recyclable cardboard for shopping. We are bad at recycling<\/strong> and we trash food<\/strong> that can still be consumed, change clothes that are still usable because they are now out of fashion … how can we consider ourselves sustainable<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

As individuals, we can improve our environmental impact<\/strong>, starting from small gestures which, however, do not generate a clear change<\/strong> in our lifestyle and our diet, respecting our nutritional needs.<\/p>\n

A study published in Ecological Economics<\/a> compares different lifestyles in order to estimate environmental and local environmental footprints<\/strong> for soil, water, climate<\/strong> and toxicity potential for humans. In this regard, the study considers the impacts generated by choices related to clothing<\/strong>, buildings<\/strong>, diet<\/strong> and its characteristics, equipment<\/strong> \/ tools used, mobility<\/strong> (type of means of transport, travel by plane …), recreational services, energy services<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The authors, through consultations with stakeholders, constructed 19 possible scenarios<\/strong> that represented a clear reduction of impacts to only what was necessary (sufficiency<\/em> option) and 17 scenarios that could be categorized as “green” (green<\/em> option). The first of the two options entailed greater mitigation on the impacts of transport<\/strong>, services<\/strong> and clothing<\/strong>, while the green option showed greater results for food<\/strong> and manufacturing products<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

With reference to the diet,<\/strong> among the scenarios with the greatest positive effects on the environment<\/strong>, the “food sufficiency<\/em>” is listed, which limits the consumption of food to 2586 Kcal \/ day<\/strong>, thus reducing the average European surplus (which is 27%), and the “anti-waste” diet, with a 12% reduction in the economic value of spending.<\/p>\n

Here emerges a first result of the study: the most painless conversion from one’s diet is that of a “sufficiency<\/em>” diet: the same habits<\/strong> are maintained and the caloric surpluses<\/strong> are eliminated. The result would be remarkable: -4.9% of carbon emissions<\/strong>, -14.4% of soil consumption and -16% of water consumption. If we add to this the<\/strong> reduction in waste<\/strong> (-2.1% of carbon emissions, -5.5% of soil consumption and -7.1% of water consumption)<\/strong> we obtain a diet that is significantly less impacting<\/strong> than the current European average, without giving up your eating habits and nutritional quality<\/strong>. Among the desirable changes is the least expensive one, both economically and in terms of time.<\/p>\n

Other food scenarios analysed are the Mediterranean diet<\/strong> (which also includes wine), the “healthy vegan<\/em>“, which eliminates processed food<\/strong>, sugars<\/strong> and drinks other than water, the diet with at least 50% of local food<\/strong>, that with organic food only, and the diet with seasonal food only: the environmental results of the conversion to these scenarios vary from zero or more impactful results to an environmental gain of 3.6% in the case of greenhouse gas emissions and harmful substances<\/strong> for humans.<\/p>\n

Again according to the study published in Ecological Economics<\/strong>, vegan diets<\/strong> would allow the carbon footprint to be reduced by up to 14% and the water footprint by up to 15%, (instead, a reduction by 6.4% and 0.2% it would be achieved with a vegetarian diet), and therefore with the total replacement of meat and fish with food of vegetable origin, milk, dairy products and eggs. But a universal conversion<\/strong> of the food style of billions of people would have impacts on land use that do not seem to be as sustainable<\/strong>. This is stated by some American researchers who, in a study published in Elementa<\/a>, report that diets that include modest meat consumption<\/strong> have a better performance in terms of production capacity (people fed per unit of soil) than vegan diets<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The study in fact distinguishes the production capacity of the soils<\/strong> on the basis of their intrinsic characteristics and therefore makes an analysis of production efficiency<\/strong> in terms of the number of people who can be fed by a given surface and type of soil. Basically, different types of land are needed to produce different types of food<\/strong>, and not all diets benefit equally from these soils. First of all, when assessing land consumption<\/strong> in relation to agriculture, it is necessary to differentiate the grazing land which is often unsuitable for cultivation, from the purely agricultural land.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Faced with an effective need to reduce environmental impacts, it is necessary to contextualize<\/strong> the indications suitable for this reduction, on the basis of what is more or less feasible. The Ecological Economics<\/em> study reports very interesting results on several sectors: it makes us reflect on the fact that a reduction in mobility and the adoption of means of transport<\/strong>, with a greater number of hours dedicated to smart-working<\/strong> (and consequent reduction of 50% of the use of cars), the use of bicycles<\/strong> and travel (where possible) on foot<\/strong>, for example would reduce the climate footprint by 9 and 26% respectively<\/strong>; high-tech villages and neighbourhoods with passive homes<\/strong> powered by renewable sources<\/strong> would reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by up to 8%<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

And yet, a “collaborative” economy<\/strong>, therefore with a greater presence of volunteering, time banks, and exchange of goods within the community, would reduce carbon emissions<\/strong> by 17.8%, the consumption of soil<\/strong> and the water footprint of 15.8% (not strictly pertinent to the study is assessing the social and economic impacts that such choices would produce).<\/p>\n

In short, if I eat a veggie burger<\/em>, but I travel by car<\/strong> without car-sharing<\/em>, I<\/strong> often travel by plane<\/strong> for pleasure only, I trash 20% of the food<\/strong> I buy, I prefer to follow fashion<\/strong> and change my clothing continuously, I can\u2019t certainly say that I have a sustainable lifestyle.<\/p>\n

It is a matter of balance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Excluding meat from diet is a non-scientifically justified choice. If made for environmental reasons, it must be contextualized in a broader set of behaviours.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":12189,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[677],"tags":[3008,3010,3012,2239,3011,2896,3007,3009,990,3006],"class_list":["post-12184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-environment-sustainability-en","tag-collaborative-economy","tag-ecological-economics-en","tag-elementa-en","tag-environmental-impacts-of-meat-production","tag-gloria-luzzani-en","tag-livestock-emissions","tag-meat-and-environment","tag-sustainability-of-vegan-diets","tag-vegan-food","tag-veggie-burgers"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t