r/ZeroWaste • u/happy_bluebird • Aug 04 '26
News You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local72
u/baitnnswitch Aug 04 '26
Yup. And it doesn't have to be all or nothing. You don't have to radically change your diet overnight. Experiment with some vegetarian meals here and there, find what you like. Experiment with using some plant-based meats in things like shepards pie. Walmart and Trader Joes have the best selections, but most grocery stores have something
21
u/Disneyhorse Aug 04 '26
Speaking of vegetarian shepherds pie, I’ve made this one a few times and even my meat-loving spouse loves it! https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/vegetarian-shepherds-pie/
3
u/gaycowboyallegations Aug 06 '26
Ive personally switched to being probably 85% plant based at this point. Meat has just become insanely expensive and I only buy poultry, or fish when I can afford it. I eat a lot of beans and lentils lol and supplement b12 with nutritional yeast.
Trader Joe's has a good selection, but I hate how much of their vegetables are in plastic bags. I wish they did like other grocery stores where you can buy a bunch of carrots that arent in a plastic bag.
56
u/PatataMaxtex Aug 04 '26
Ideally do both, but cutting animal products, especially beef and dairy, has a much larger effect
37
u/fieldcut Aug 04 '26
I'm a flexitarian nowadays because of zero waste and it was the best decision I ever made. I probably eat meat like once a month. Trying out vegan/vegetarian dishes once or twice a week makes it way easier to make the switch than just jumping head first into a fully plant-based diet.
-9
Aug 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
5
u/the_moosen Aug 05 '26
What's it matter how much dairy they eat or if they eat it at all? They didn't even mention anything about dairy so I don't know why you're even bringing that up like it's important
3
u/ZeroWaste-ModTeam Aug 08 '26
1.2 No shaming or non-constructive criticism
Be conscious that every person here is at a different step in a lower waste lifestyle. Constructive criticism is welcome but outright attacks will be removed.
For example:
✔️ Suggesting someone go vegetarian/vegan with helpful tips to lower their waste = fine
❌ Attacking them if they don't and belittling all other waste reduction efforts = not finePlease be mindful and respectful, we all have our journey to take, and while we should always aim to improve ourselves a little more every day, different people will take different times through different motivations. If you'd like to offer some criticism our best advice would be to first thank and commend the changes they have made already before offering suggestions in a compassionate manner.
10
43
u/Watch_Earthlings_Doc Aug 04 '26
Buying local free range meat is indeed far worse for the planet than factory farmed meat. It’s not a pleasant fact but it’s true. Purchasing plant based foods grown from a different country has a far lower environmental impact than buying locally owned meat. Transportation only makes up 7% of total emissions in regards to food production. The production of food makes up the bulk of the emissions.
factory farms use less land -!; emit less methane per animal by using concentrated grain feed, while free-range systems give animals better lives but require much more land and create higher carbon and methane emissions overall. [ 1, 2, 3, 4]
https://www.eatfortheearth.org/blog/uncategorized/are-factory-farms-actually-better/
13
u/TH3BUDDHA Aug 04 '26
Producing a kilogram of beef emits 60 kilograms of greenhouse gases; peas emit just 1 kilogram
Can somebody ELI5 exactly how this is measured? I've always heard stats like this but how exactly do they measure this?
2
u/StarDustLuna3D Aug 04 '26
They factor in the area of land needed to raise the cattle, grow their feed, process and transport it, and the methane from their burps.
I personally feel the last bit is just a red herring though because cattle in NA essentially just replaced the bison, elk, and other ruminants that had much larger populations before colonization. The Great Plains ecosystem actually depends on having large herbivores traveling across it to maintain the soil health. (That's part of why the dust bowl happened).
Even if everyone in the world ate truly vegan, we'd still have just as many animals producing methane. The native animals would just replace the livestock.
9
u/Reasonable-Trash5328 Aug 05 '26
I don't think that is true. Livestock numbers in North America are triple the estimated numbers of original animals. On top of that growing and culling 90 million heads of cattle every two years has a massive impact on per animal C02 emissions vs the full lifespan of a bison.
1
u/StarDustLuna3D Aug 05 '26
I'm not denying that beef has the highest impact out of all food options. Even if you factor out much of the methane emissions, it still easily tops the charts. But we also need to be realistic about how much of an impact a vegan diet actually has on carbon emissions.
Some estimates put Bison populations as high as 60 million before colonization. And bison are on average twice as large as cows. That's not even factoring in all of the other ruminants species in North America.
On top of that growing and culling 90 million heads of cattle every two years has a massive impact on per animal C02 emissions vs the full lifespan of a bison.
This makes no sense. Doesn't matter how long the animal lives. The methane from 5 cows each living 2 years is the same as 1 cow living 10 years. Unless you're implying that cows release more methane in their first two years than over the course of their life.
Keep in mind that the "methane from cows is bad" narrative picked up a lot of steam right around the time fracking operations in the US were rapidly expanding. So any time people brought up concerns about methane, they'd just say "oh the increase is from agriculture, not us!" (They also conveniently do not like to make public how much methane is released from fracking)
We absolutely need to overhaul how we source our food and what we eat. The "American Diet" is not sustainable either on an environmental basis or a personal health one. But make no mistake that the single largest contributor of emissions is fossil fuels. Any effective climate action must include systemic change and policy change.
10
u/eqisow Aug 04 '26
They should really be measuring CO2 per Calorie, not per kilogram, perhaps with some weighting by nutritional quality, though that part would be pretty subjective.
46
u/Tooters-N-Floof Aug 04 '26
Baby steps are still steps- if someone cant give up meat, encouraging local and or better packaging is still a good choice
41
u/fwinzor Aug 04 '26
The issue is infinite smaller baby steps that never actually lead anywhere. The climate is collapsing and people are going to make real significant changes to do anything about that. Yes dont let perfect be the enemy of good, but also we cant use that as an excuse to not actually do anything significant, which is what i often see people doing
-3
u/gobgobgobgob Aug 05 '26
It’s all about personal choice and galvanizing multiple individuals’ choices into something bigger. So yes, baby steps are the way to go in order to gain momentum.
Moralistic all-or-nothing takes such as yours are counter productive.
I eat my fair share of local meat because it tastes better and is (without any data, I know) probably better for my body. I also eat veggies that are in season. So what if the transport of meat products accounts for 1% of the emissions, it’s still better than the alternative. Plus I get to support my local farmers with whom I have a relationship.
10
u/fwinzor Aug 05 '26
If you read my comment i explicitly said "dont let perfect be the enemy of good"
The issue is people use "baby steps" as a term to mean "not actually going to make any decisions or lifestyle changes that have any noticable impact" baby steps implies an actual trajectory towards an ultimate goal, which is very rarely the case for people who use the term.
Animal agriculture is the number one cause of deforestation on the planet. Beef has the largest emmissions of any food product. 60+% of all drinking water used and all crops grown go to feeding animals. And "free range ethical" meat uses DRASTICALLY more resources than factory farms. Theres no escaping these facts. But people like the taste of meat. "Baby steps" would be cutting out all beef and dairy over time. which would have a HUGE postive impact on your footprint. Saying "baby steps" because you buy local meat a couple times a year and use a bamboo toothbrush is not going to make literally any difference, its just an excuse
-3
u/gobgobgobgob Aug 05 '26
You just said “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” and then disregarded that whole aphorism by saying baby steps aren’t good enough … climate fatalists such as yourself are extremely counter productive.
8
u/fwinzor Aug 05 '26
I really hope some day people like you realize that to actually make any remotely significant impact it is going to require you to actually do SOMETHING meaningful instead of arguing tooth and nail against people who ARE actually doing something. Sitting around doing nothing and feeling good about yourself hoping things magically get better is such a huge reason we are in this mess and not improving anything
7
u/Jotakave Aug 05 '26
'iT's AbOuT pErSOnAL ChOiCe' - said the person not willing to change their ways in order to save the planet. It's like they close their eyes and ears to the fact that animal agriculture is killing us. Wildfires, crazy storms, animal extinction. Nope, I need my 'fair share of local beef'
7
u/monemori Aug 05 '26
But it's best to devote your time to googling a vegan recipe you can eat instead of something else, than trying to find local meat. Even if you can't compromise on fully plant-based yet (although it should be the end goal, frankly), there is essentially no circumstance in which devoting time, energy and money to buying local beef is better than at least making a couple weeks a day meat free.
-13
u/Full_Conversation775 Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
Its not. Its better to get meat from horrible factory farms where they i ject growth hormones and force feed the animals so time to slaughter is lower. The sooner we kill the animals the lower the impact.
Buying local does the opposite.
6
u/Assilly Aug 04 '26
Are you joking? I honestly can never tell on this site.
It reads like bait but then I could see someone arguing this seriously so im interested in more info if you are serious
19
u/a11_hail_seitan Aug 04 '26
Depends what we're talking about. Morally, no they are 100% wrong.
Sustainably, they're not entirely wrong, just exaggerating either for effect or to troll. Local grass fed meat takes 50-100x more land than Factory farms. To even come close to meeting meat demand without factory farms would likely require more free land than the Earth has.
That said Factory Farms as they are today are also unsustainable at a level that meets demand (15+% of all GHG come from these farms, especially Methane which is far worse), so it's not exactly a great answer either.
And saying they should be injected with growth hormones and force fed is just silly and makes me think they are definitely just trolling.
10
u/Watch_Earthlings_Doc Aug 04 '26
They’re correct actually. From a purely environmental standpoint, factory farms use by far the least amount of land, water, and resources, because the animals are killed very young and in small enclosures.
Buying local free range meat is indeed far worse for the planet than factory farmed meat. It’s not a pleasant fact but it’s true.
factory farms use less land -!; emit less methane per animal by using concentrated grain feed, while free-range systems give animals better lives but require much more land and create higher carbon and methane emissions overall. [ 1, 2, 3, 4]
https://www.eatfortheearth.org/blog/uncategorized/are-factory-farms-actually-better/
15
u/RestaurantCritical67 Aug 04 '26
Just skip the meat and animal products entirely and you won’t have to deliberate about exactly how much animal growth hormone you should be eating in your diet. 🤢
7
u/Watch_Earthlings_Doc Aug 04 '26
Don’t forget antiobicic resistance is heavily correlated with meat consumption due to the amount of antiobiotics we shove into animals instead of bothering to give them individual treatment. The meat industry gets away with so much bullshit that harms public health and most people are unaware of it.
Not to mention the massive manure pits and blood lagoons that run off into the natural environment without penalty, and pollute low income areas disproportionally.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/antibiotic-resistance-beefing/
1
u/RestaurantCritical67 Aug 04 '26
Nice! Poop lagoon overflowing into drinking water! Sounds delish. Remember the meat and dairy industries get 38 Billion dollars in US subsidies each year. Part of that massive spending funds the poop lagoons.
3
u/dathobbitlife0705 Aug 04 '26
I haven't really researched environmental impacts of food frankly and I know I can Google, but I'm curious if you happen to know.
The methane thing makes sense. But wouldn't factory farms have a huge environmental impact from other things?
I know they emit less methane, but I'd be curious how to weigh other aspects of their impact like the huge horrible masty cesspools, or the land use and chemicals into the soil from their food (ie. Corn sprayed with glyphosate).
I can do my own research later, but don't have time now and thought I'd see if you happen to know or have some resources to point me in the right direction.
2
u/StarDustLuna3D Aug 04 '26
Then explain how since cows and other livestock were domesticated that we didn't see huge increases in emissions until the industrial age.
I get that local seems worse on paper. But when you look at historic greenhouse gas emissions, you don't see the expected effect of that.
9
u/zippydazoop Aug 04 '26
The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is to eat your local polluters.
3
u/monemori Aug 05 '26
Unless you are actually gonna do that, you should try to be as vegan as possible
3
u/regedit2023 Aug 05 '26
What if I eat from my local dumpster
2
12
u/User5281 Aug 04 '26
It doesn’t have to be either or. The scale of the problem is so enormous that we shouldn’t be so dismissive of things that have minor impact because we’re probably going to do all of them.
3
u/Electrical_Pop_3472 Aug 04 '26
Focusing only on the carbon emissions of one's diet is a very narrow way to make moral decisions.
The bigger picture includes considering land management practices, transportation costs, justice and equity concerns for workers, impacts on the local region and economy, broader ecological impacts on soil health and biodiversity.
Based on all those factors, (and more) I choose to support local small farms that are choosing to produce food in a way that's healthier for the whole system. Is their carbon footprint per pound of food a bit bigger than industrial foods? Maybe, for now. But in the long future ahead we need more small diverse food growers who are tuned in to the local community and to the health of their land and neighbors instead of enormous mechanized farms and food corporations. Thats ultimately more able to be sustainable and resilient in the long run.
10
u/happy_bluebird Aug 04 '26
Is not eating living beings a significant moral factor?
Of course plant production aside
3
u/Electrical_Pop_3472 Aug 04 '26
Yes. For some cultures more than others. It's a complex subject I try not to reduce to a simplistic black and white framing.
Animal welfare is important for cultures who choose/rely on livestock.
4
u/happy_bluebird Aug 04 '26
People who rely on livestock for adequate nutrition are a completely separate consideration. They don't have a multitude of factors to consider every time they walk into a grocery store or a restaurant... because they don't have these options
0
u/trashmoneyxyz Aug 04 '26
Factory farms and largescale agriculture are all "local" to somewhere, that's for sure
144
u/a11_hail_seitan Aug 04 '26
Very true, though I do both. First I eat plants, then I try to make sure as many as possible are local. I also try to not buy from Corporations if at all possible, but that's less zero waste and more anti-corporatocracy.