9

The planet-saving green shift that sticks to the roof of your mouth


 

Via Ezra (who’s always so earnest), here are startling numbers about the climate-change impact of a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich for lunch instead of “something based on meat:”

Each time you have a plant-based lunch like a PB&J you’ll reduce your carbon footprint by the equivalent of 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions over an average animal-based lunch like a hamburger, a tuna sandwich, grilled cheese, or chicken nuggets. For dinner you save 2.8 pounds and for breakfast 2.0 pounds of emissions.


You’ll conserve water at lunch too! How about 133 gallons of water conserved at lunch versus the average American lunch? To put this in perspective, five PB&Js or other plant-based lunches per month would save more water than switching to a low-flow showerhead. If you’re replacing hamburgers, it should take you just three lunches to conserve more water than the low-flow showerhead.

If you eat 40 PB&J a day, well… the mind boggles at the goodness that will be unleashed. More vital info here.


 

The planet-saving green shift that sticks to the roof of your mouth

  1. But veal and foie gras are still okay, right? Whew!

  2. But the impact of Kraft Dinner is still to be determined!

  3. You’ve made me realise that I don’t eat meat often enough. I usually only have meat for supper, I need to increase my contribution.

  4. Bah. Too many vegetarians and the increased cow population will kill us with THEIR greenhouse gas emissions

  5. Does eating a cow help climate change? as well wouldn’t that qualify as a carbon sink? Last but not least how are Liberals planning on taxing the methane generated by cows? Although considering the experience of the liberal Party they would do very well with the bulls as they have a great deal of experience in dealing out the carbon biproduct.

  6. If I skip flying to the Green Party convention, then I’m good for at least 200 extra steaks per year for the rest of my life!

  7. Other than the fact that cows are grown & processed locally (or at least within a day’s drive) while my veggies are shipped from the southern US & South America, which has less stringent pesticide regulations, we could save the world with argula salad.

    Are political conventions subject to cap-and-trade? Lots of hot gases there.

  8. It is always frustrating to me to see people making light of their meat consumption, and mocking suggestions to reduce it. The mass production of meat in North America has serious environmental consequences — yet the suggestion to eat less meat is always met with cow fart jokes, rather than reasoned debate.

    The PB&J campaign may be a little simplistic, but the issues raised are valid. I assume these condescending dismissals of the argument are just another example of people being too lazy or stubborn to change their behaviour for the greater good.

  9. Good to see the discussion about the impact of meat is having on our climate. Here are a few more facts to consider:

    Currently about 70% of the world’s agricultural land is used for meat production – or about 30% of the earth’s surface.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0120-20.htm

    A recent Cornell University study found that a vegetarian diet requires only about .44 acres per person per year whereas a meat-heavy diet required almost five times as much space at 2.11 acres.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm

    “The United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization has issued a stunning report on global warming. Livestock production is responsible for more climate change gasses than all the motor vehicles in the world. In total, it is responsible for 18% of human induced greenhouse gas emissions. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.”

    http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/

    Veganism, vegetarianism, or just reducing how much meat is consumed on a weekly basis should be considered more. As a way to save agricultural land and reduce the impacts of climate change.

Sign in to comment.