Not always. when we think veganism we think of the lack of meat, and many other high impact foods. this is true, and one of the good impacts of a plant based diet, but it doesn't take into account one very important factor, How is your food getting to you? beef from a small, local farm is still better than quinoa that has to take a long plane ride to get to the store you buy it from, as is milk from the same farm compared to almond milk that takes a truly egregious amount of water to grow, not to mention the labor exploitation often involved in growing popular health foods. Veganism isn't necessarily better for the environment, its usually just promoted by companies selling vegan foods as being good for the environment just because its more expensive, which also contributes to class divides in climate activism, as many people just can't afford to fit the cultural ideal of sustainability.

dont have anything to contribute but this is a really good post

I think this is an interesting idea. Most people are taught that it is always better to be vegetarian or vegan, but it would make sense that some replacement meat or dairy products could actually have more of an impact than meat depending on how far away or how much resources the replacement food requires.

I agree that in every case vegan food isn't automatically more sustainable or healthy, but I disagree that a vegan diet is "usually just promoted by companies selling vegan foods as being good for the environment just because its more expensive."

If we want to talk about misinformation coming from giant food conglomerates, pointing the finger at vegan food companies seems like a pretty big misdirection. 

I would probably instead focus on giant agribusiness which is trying to sell you factory farmed meat and dairy.  This idea that we need to be consuming milk of some other animal for our entire lives as part of a healthy diet is nonsense and is certainly driven by profit.  Likewise for the *amount* of meat that people in many rich countriues (especially the USA) consume -- way more than we did historically, and way more than is healthy according to studies into gheart disease, cholesterol and other issues with excessive consumption of meat.

As for the specific issue of local versus shipped products, that is also overstated here.  The majority of the footprint of food is not from transport, it's from production and processing.  For meat in particular, food has to be grown for the animals to feed on.  That requires a lot of water and energy, and then there is the refrigeration needed for meat. And if you are talking about ruminants like cows, there is a LOT of methane production associated with their belching etc. 

All told even locally produced meat has a far higher footprint than, say, an equivalent amount of tofu protein shipped across the country.  You can use the fopotprint calculator to see the difference.

In terms of transport specifically, something like your example of quinoa is going to be transported by surface (container ship) not by air. So while there is a footprint associated with the transport it is again pretty minimal compared to the entire footprint of meat production whether local organic or factory farmed.

I agree that one can eat a sustainable diet by including meat, but in limited quantities. It is in my opinion not valid to imply that a typical vegan diet is less sustainable than an omnivorous diet focused on local foods that includes a significant amount of meat consumption.

as for the costs, that is also somewhat artificial.  In the US there are massive subsidies for large agribusiness, including the factory farms and the commodity crops (like GMO corn and soy) that are grown largely as feed for cows in factory farms.  Not only should those operations sot be subsidized in my opinion, they should be taxed fopr the excessive carbon emissions and other environmental impacts (like fertilizer runoff into waterways and all the downstream consequences).

Small farmers (whether animal farmers or vegetable farmers) don't get the same level of subsidies, and as a result you can see why the prioced of local, organic meat is so much higher than the cheap meat in grocery stores.

There is no reason why governments could not subsidize healthy foods of all kinds that are better for the environment, or otherwise ensure that poorer folks can afford a healthy diet. Many communities are doing this (e.g., doubling food stamp values at local farmers markets). 

When it comes to a cultural or monetary divide in diets, we need to think about how we can feed the planet sustainably and affordably.  As horrible as factory farms are, they can grow their cows on a LOT less land.  If you want to replace those operations with free range cows treated humanely, then the only way to do that is for people in the west to eat less meat and more vegetables. There's not enough land otherwise.