Beef is by far the most environmentally costly food most people can put on their plate, which is why choosing it over alternatives is such a telling signal. Per gram of protein, beef produces many times the greenhouse gas emissions of chicken, eggs, or legumes, mostly from cattle methane and from the forest cleared for pasture and feed. It also demands far more land and water than almost any other common food. These facts are widely published and easy to find, and cheaper, lower-impact options are available in nearly every grocery store. So when someone keeps choosing beef anyway, they are showing that the environmental cost isn’t a factor in their decision. Nobody has to be perfect, but picking the highest-impact option when better ones are easy to reach is a pretty clear statement of priorities.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 22 hours ago

Well i dont know if you tell the truth, but obviously you know more of this than me. I will still not eat beef or cut a lot the consumption because it is the environmetalist consensus. Maybe you tell the truth and in 10 years they say eating beef is not that bad for what you say, but to be save i will not eat it and i will be happy if someone reduce their beef intake

  • source
  • parent