When my sister said she was going vegan, I thought she was crazy; She claimed she could save the environment! However, I know now that although she can't do it on her own, my sister is playing a part in helping the earth. According to "New Scientist," "If you stop eating meat, your food-related carbon footprint could plummet to less than half of what it was." The article also says that up to 1/4 of human greenhouse gas emission is the result of food production.  The amount your carbon footprint would decrease, though, depends on what degree of vegetarianism you are at. Just reducing the amount of meat you eat by half could take 1/3 off of your emissions. Veganism is seemingly the diet best for the environment, though, as while pescatarians have 2.5% less emissions than vegetarians, vegans have 25% less! Therefore if we all took on veganism, or at least ate a bit less meat, we could help the planet. Will you say no to the steak in turn for a smaller carbon footprin t and a cooler planet? ( https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn … your-food/)

I agree Carly. Being vegan or vegetarian would definitely decrease the amount of carbon we release based off of our eating habits. I found an interesting chart online at http://timeforchange.org/eat-less-meat- … on-of-food I was shocked by the fact that 1 kg of beef takes almost 13.3 kg of CO2 emissions to make. If everyone were to eat less meat our carbon footprints would be cut down significantly and the earth would definitely benefit from it.

I partially agree Carly. Veganism is a big contribution to a decrease in greenhouse emissions. Production of meat plays a big role in carbon emissions. Vegetables are good and could are a healthy diet, but at the same time, humans aren't completely designed to be herbivorous. It is a possibility, but worldwide veganism seems a little farfetched.

I had no idea that the production of food contributed so much to the emission of human greenhouse gasses. It now makes sense to me why so many people are going vegan nowadays. It seems like it is a really hard switch to make, especially if you are going from a meat eater to vegan as opposed to vegetarian to vegan. However, cutting down your own emissions by 1/3 is a huge deal, and with the recent upward trend of switching to a vegan diet (See link below), going vegan may not be such a bad idea.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=vegan

While I see your point, it is necessary to understand that many fruits and vegetables are resource based. Lettuce, for example, produces more greenhouse gas emissions (3x more!) than bacon does. In fact, the seafood and veggie based diet recommended by the USDA would raise gases by 38% compared to the typical meat heavy diet. Not all produce has the same carbon footprint. It is necessary to understand the difficulties that come with growing, harvesting, and transporting certain fruits/veggies. There are differences in various forms of the vegan/vegetarian diets, and it is crucial to do your research to understand which is truly best for the environment. If you decrease your calorie intake from the typical high calorie American diet, it reduces your carbon footprint by 9%. On the other hand, if you adjust the foods eaten to incorporate USDA standards but keep calories the same, you actually increase your greenhouse gas emissions by 11%. If you shift food sources AND decrease calorie intake, it actually increases gas emissions by 38%. Not all foods are produced and used by  your body equally.

Sources: http://time.com/money/4154705/vegetaria … vironment/
   http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … acon-does/
   http://www.sciencealert.com/vegetarian- … tudy-finds

I definitely agree. In the future, it is my goal to become a vegan. I want to make this transition to not only become more environmentally sustainable, but to end my connection with the livestock industry. One of the many benefits about veganism that you mentioned is that it is extremely sustainable. Compared to meat and/or dairy eaters, being a vegan can cut your carbon footprint massively. The reason for this is because the amount of resources that goes into producing one burger or steak is astranomical. Watching documentaries like "Cowspiracy" and "Forks Over Knives" can provide information about veganism and its beneficial impact on the environment.

I can agree that if everyone cut their meat usage you could decrease your carbon footprint ,but the problem is getting everyone to do it

I agree on the part that it would lower emissions substantially but in turn how would it affect our health and our life expediencies???

I just realized how much eating meat could impact the environment and i really agree with you

Hi all - good conversation! 

Maya: your post caused me to check on that lettuce versus bacon issue.  I found a scientific american reprint of the original article where you probably got your information, and I must say that I find that comparison a bit disingenuous.  I mean: wouldn't a better comparison be tofu versus bacon?  Nobody replaces bacon with lettuce! 

Ultimately, from the data I've seen, if you compare the impact of a vegan or vegetarian diet versus a omnivorous one (meat and everything else), the vegetarian diet has a lesser climate impact than omnivore, and the vegan diet has the lowest impact.   

The USDA does not currently recommend a vegetarian diet, and the USDA guidelines are not at all focused on climate change - they are focused on health concerns.

Pigs and cows have a huge climate impact, especially through their methane production (from poops and farts), which is 20x more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 on a molecule-by-molecule basis.   

I have seen no reputable source that disputes this.

Here's a link on methane in agriculture:
https://thinkprogress.org/methane-emiss … .fzmcn0byj

Your sister is doing good, she must be very brave to not eating meat anymore.
Give her my respects.

You make a great point, Carly. But I think what you should consider is the nutrition and health levels that would decline if everyone switched to veganism. Meat contains all the essential amino acids and is ranked as one of the best sources of protein. Many animal products, like cheese and milk contain a great deal of calcium, which is especially required for children with growing bones. Yes, you can find calcium and protein in other foods, but you would have to consume much more to get the same amount of protein and vitamins that are in meat and animal products. Also, if the whole world switched to natural sources of food, millions of people in the food industry would lose their jobs or would be much harder for them to make money off their products. Another point is that the world would obviously, have to increase agricultural flow. Not all places around the world are fertile for growing agriculture, so in these areas there would be a great lack of food and everything would have to be shipped to them. If the agricultural levels increase drastically, so will the use of w ater. Growing crops uses a lot of water and if we were using it to produce all of our food, then we would eventually run out of it and it is our most important resource. Humans would likely eat the produce faster than it can be regrown, and this could lead to worldwide starvation. For all these reasons, I believe that turning vegan would not solve our worldwide problems of food and hunger.

Dear Lauren, I am not sure I agree with you on a couple of your points:

1) I don't think anyone suggests that the world should or could instantaneously switch to veganism.  So I don't see that people losing their jobs is really the issue.  There would be just as many jobs in a future of less meat consumption, they would just be in different aspects of the food industry than they are now.

2) you should check your facts about land and water use. Farm animals like cows, chickens and pigs -at least as they are grown in richer countries- use a lot more land than growing vegetables for food.  That is because these animals are herbivores and we have to grow crops to feed them in the first place! At each level of this process there is inefficiency and energy loss, therefore we would need  a lot *less* land and water to grow food as vegetables for ourselves directly than to grow food for herbivorous farm animals.

Ultimately, I do not believe that the whole world needs t o be vegan for us to live sustainably, but the current level of meat consumption in the USA, for example, is unprecentedly high.  We are consuming way more mat than we need, and that is not efficient,

I think that veganism is a smart choice. Egypt has the highest carbon amounts for food. I know that Egyptians eat a lot of meat, so it makes sense how high their carbon amounts are. There could be many ways to help get this number down would be to go vegan. They would use less carbon sticking to plant based foods. Veganism is not for me, but I think it is a smart way to get your carbon use down.

While becoming a vegan may cause some change and help, it is not necessarily an end all solution. Vast swathes of the developed and underdeveloped world have built their livelihoods on the production of meat, and to reduce demand for meat would be to destroy economic activity in communities that need more stimulation, not less. Even if this does not happen, a significant portion of the earth's surface is only viable for grazing land. The steppes of Asia, grassland of Africa, and plains of North America are much more productive as grazing land than they would be if they were farmland. With this in mind, becoming a vegan isn't a legitimate choice for the communities that are surrounded by grazing land. In addition to these mounting problems, high protein crops like beans can only grow in certain climates, and if more people were vegan/vegetarian, there would not be a significant protein source for all the people who can't grow these crops. So, while being a vegan may be a viable option for those who shop at supermarkets and can afford the pricier protein sources that are n ot derived from animals, those living on non-arable land in underdeveloped communities will continue to eat meat.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean#Production

I really like this idea and I think that a vegan diet really does impact the world in a positive manner but in relation to the hunger and health it might not be the best option. If the world or a great majority of the world were to switch to a vegan diet it would be very hard. Every climate is different and in some areas the vegetation is not the most nutrient packed food that a human diet requires. The health of people would decrease and many people could die from malnutrition. I believe this would impact our world greatly. Mankind is supposed to include meat in their diet. We have canine teeth to rip flesh and this diet could even lead to the overpopulation of animals and in that process the loss of more and more vegetation which will be the consistency of our new diets. This plan would be great if it were possible. I think this diet has more cons than the one pro of reducing carbon use.

While becoming vegan may help some of the issues we face with carbon outputs, it is not the best solution in terms of hunger and health. The whole world switching to veganism, while nice, is not possible. As Sophia stated, every climate does not support the growth of healthy plants. In a cold climate, wheat will not grow as easily as it would in America or the Middle East. Rice will not grow in dry areas like Northern Africa. In this case becoming vegan isn't entirely possible, because animals are simply easier to take care.
There is also the fact that in many cultures, meat eating is apart of meals or growing up, and hunting and growing your own animals to eat is still popular in many parts of the world (India, Mexico, etc.) It's highly unlikely that a long held traditions, for example eating pig roast, pasteles, or morcilla at christmas in many Caribbean/Latino cultures, would simply stop. Many of these traditions stem from native cultures, slave culture, or even resistance movements.
There is also the question of what would happen to the animals. Many of them would s imply overpopulate, and they would need to eat grass and other plants, which would cause a drop in the amount of plants available to humans.  Meaning that humans would overuse land growing food and feeding overpopulated animals, which would result in other issues such as wind erosion of topsoil (see 1930's dust bowl), lack of micronutrients in the soil including nitrogen, zinc, phosphorus, and many others.
Furthermore, veganism is also not something everyone can afford. More than 3 billion people are in poverty, and when you can't afford to be picky, you have to eat what you have, which tends to be animals. The cost of being vegan is often higher depending on the neighborhood or country you live in. In some countries where plants are plentiful and meat is not as widely produced, plants cost less, but malnourishment is more common.
Additionally, veganism comes with health and nutritional risk. For babies and toddlers, the breast milk of vegan mother's is lower in critical brain fat, DHA, and contains less usable vitamin b6. Soy formulas and soy in general are not as healthy for a developing child, as they are a poor source of iron, zinc, and calcium. Soy is also damaging to the thyroid, which damages immunity and stunts growth. In adults, there's a chance of getting a nutrient deficiency or becoming malnourishment.
Veganism is good, but is not best idea for lowering carbon emissions.

Although I believe that veganism would take away many of our environmental problems, I do not believe it would reduce our carbon footprint. The resources used in the production of crops is more polluting than the production of meat products.  It would take more crop amounts to sufficiently energize a person than it would for meat, considering meat's high protein count. If a person is vegan, they are buying more and more crops than they would need to if they were omnivorous. This would suggest that in the long run, veganism is promoting more production of crops, which includes using the polluting resources necessary for this production.   According to Science Alert, the consumption of lettuce is about three times more harmful in emitting greenhouse gasses than eating bacon. So, although veganism has various benefits, it does have its negative factors.

I disagree, because while much of America's meat and dairy products are produced through factory farming (the reason non-vegans' carbon footprints are usually higher), we would be able to reduce our carbon footprint by only buying free-range and grass-fed products.

Wow, this topic has really inspired a lot of thoughtful commentary, which is great!  But I would just like to chime in and correct a few things that I see as misconceptions in some of the posts above.

1) And this is my major point: I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that everyone on earth become vegan tomorrow.  Carly, in her original post, talked about people "eating a little less meat."  A lot of the comments above envision (and argue against) an extreme scenario of switching suddenly to veganism worldwide, and that really is not a serious proposal.

2) Yes, many people eat what they can, and do not have the luxury to choose a diet. But there is a big misconception here that people in poor countries generally eat a lot of meat.  They don't.  Look at this link showing a color-coded map of the amount of meat consumed per person in different countries. People in the richest countries eat up to 10x more meat per person than people in the poorest countries.
http://chartsbin.com/view/12730
In many parts of the world, poor people are effectively vegetarians because  they generally can't afford to eat much meat.  The meat consumption problem is a problem mainly of rich countries (and rich residents of poor countries).

3) Mia: in the USA, if everyone only ate free range and grass fed meat, it would cost more and there would be less meat available.  There is not enough range land to satisfy the current meat consumption levels in the USA.

4) In most cases, people are growing animals for meat on farms.  If we reduced our meat consumption there would not be an "overpopulation" of animals, the animals wouldn't be born in the first place.  As for hunting, yes, we have some animals that are overpopulated in places (like deer), but the reason for that is not that we are not eating enough deer, it's because we have exterminated their natural predators.  On the whole, mammal populations on the planet are dropping very very fast.  There is really only one animal on the planet that is overpopulating, and that is human animals.

5) There have been some highly publicized cases of vegan mothers not giving their babies breast milk.  That is insane!  No intelligent vegan deprives babies of milk.  However, humans do not require milk once they are weaned.  Although a vegan diet is trickier to do, it is completely possible to do.  And the data generally shows that vegans (if they eat smartly) are healthier than non vegans, with lower rates of heart disease for example.

6) I do not agree with the argument that we should eat meat simply because our distant ancestors ate a mixed meat and vegetarian diet.  Our lifestyles have changed in many many ways since those pre-historic times, and we have scientific data that tells us what we need for a healthy diet.  Our ancestors did not have medical science to help us. 

But most of all, the current level of meat consumption on the planet is simply not sustainable.  We cannot achieve a low carbon future if we keep raising farm animals for meat at the level that we, as a planet, currently are.

A Carnegie Mellon study published December 14, 2015 found that consuming lettuce is over 3x worse in green house gas emission than eating bacon. Doctor Fischbeck who received his education from Stanford university stated that "lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than what you would think." He states the Idea that since vegetables have to be grown in various climates and then shipped across long distances to grocery stores that this actually increases their carbon footprint. This consumption pattern in the US can be seen as vegetables such as tomatoes are grown in green houses and are available all year long. One way to counteract this problem is to shop locally and buy vegetables that are in season in your area. Not only adopting a vegan diet will help the environment but adopting practices that make sure consuming this diet does not increase your carbon footprint.

Links:
Carnegie Mellon University "Vegetarian and healthy diets could be more harmful to the environment."

Thank you Ethan!  I have seen this study and I think it is slightly disingenuous.

I mean: who replaces bacon with lettuce?  Wouldn't a better comparison have been bacon and tofu?

But the larger point is a good one, and I *totally* agree with you about tomatoes, which can use a huge amount of fossil fuels to be grown inside greenhouses year round.  For me, I prefer to wait for tomato season, when they are local and fresh and much tastier.  And also have a very small carbon footprint

I think Veganism is a really great way to help your carbon footprint. The Huffington Post says that if everyone cut out all beef intake, carbon emissions could be reduced by 90% by 2030! They also said that if every American became a vegetarian it would be the equivalent of removing 46 million cars from the road. But veganism is not the answer for everyone. It would be very hard for anyone of the lower income bracket to make the switch to veganism. Veganism is highly expensive and according to a study by BuildFold it costs around $375 per person per month!. The average family size in America is 2.6 people, I will round that to 2 and 3 for a range. That means that Vegan families are spending between 9,000 and 13,500 dollars per year on food. The average meat eating family spends around 6,602 dollars per year on food. This is a big difference. Being a vegan is great, but it is impractical to believe that everyone has the ability to become vegan. Over all veganism is a luxury that not everyone can afford.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/2 … -footprint _n_5538914.html
https://thebillfold.com/the-cost-of-bei … ac12158d3d
https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-much-we-spend-food

I agree that going vegan could be part of the solution to global warming. According to climatecentral.org, by 2050 the greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by 15 to 35 percent just by cutting down red meat consumption. By cutting down red meat and other climate changing reducers it would help a lot overall with global warming. The more people that go vegan or vegetarian, the more we would save the climate. My family personally does not eat red meat very often, and more and more people that I know are starting to either go vegan or vegetarian. Even with a small, of people cutting down on red meat, it could still start the process of making a huge difference.