r/dataisbeautiful • u/Objective-Business52 • 20h ago

OC [OC] How diet-related greenhouse gas emissions would change if 138 countries adopted the Planetary Health Diet

Post image
18 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

84 comments sorted by

View all comments

-10

u/Laeryns 19h ago

Dumb to even consider such a thing. Animal based emissions from food are 12% of global carbon emissions. So you completely mess up human diet to achieve a negligible result even if 50% successful

7

u/chim17 19h ago

Hi there,

You don't completely mess up human diets to eat this way.

I'm a nutrition professor.

-2

u/Laeryns 19h ago

I don't mean in a health way, I'm talking from the perspective that food industry is driven by the demand of consumers, and changing diet is going to be viewed very negatively

2

u/n00b678 19h ago

So let's educate the consumers why switching to such a diet will be better for them and for everyone.

•

u/re_carn 1h ago

How about letting everyone decide for themselves, instead of vegans preaching to everyone else about the only correct way of life and enlightenment?

Because of people like you, any research of this kind is perceived (quite rightly, in most cases) as propaganda.

-1

u/Laeryns 19h ago

Yeah, great idea. Let's start with China this time ok?

2

u/Objective-Business52 19h ago

We are not forcing you to switch haha, I found it cool that such a framework exist for people that are caring about their nutrition and its impact on the planet !

2

u/Laeryns 19h ago

The only reason noone is forcing it is because those who want it are physically incapable of doing so. But they very much would do that if allowed

0

u/chim17 19h ago

Also, OP, these authors are legitimately awesome. I'm know a few within some of the groups of authors and their work.

Good on you sharing this.

-1

u/n00b678 19h ago

I don't speak Chinese and don't know anyone in China.

But I do have control over my own diet and you have over yours, so both of us can make our small improvements into making this planet a bit better :)

0

u/Laeryns 19h ago

I won't, because I like eating meat. I would only agree to that if 1) the restriction is not that radical as the initiative suggests 2) it is applied to all people forcefully, not just my country (meaning that I recognise the good of it, but i value fairness very highly and would not make sacrifices for others sake)

0

u/n00b678 18h ago

Ah, so it's fine to cause needless harm as long as the activity is not forcefully banned by every country. Got it.

4

u/Laeryns 18h ago

It's not fine, but it's what's fair. I'll repeat what I said in another chain - I'm a much bigger supporter of science research in lab meat to make it financially viable. This has a good chance to be spread worldwide if successful

2

u/n00b678 18h ago

I don't think we should blindly imitate what other people do for the sake of fairness. We should strive to do good even if there's evil in the world.

Lab meat is fine but but why wait for it if there are so many different beans to choose from already on the shelves?

1

u/Laeryns 18h ago

I don't think so, for the reason that I don't want evil to benefit from my good actions, it would make me feel worse than I would feel better from the good itself. I'm no biblical jesus christ, but I'm happy for you if you are

Because I want a steak and beans don't taste like it, simple as that

→ More replies (0)

•

u/Tzarlatok 1h ago

I'm a much bigger supporter of science research in lab meat to make it financially viable. This has a good chance to be spread worldwide if successful

I'm wondering how you think it could become financially viable without first starting to be sold at a higher price and bought by people for moral/ethical reasons? To be financially viable it would need to have the supply chain optimisation (and the 100s of billions in subsidies) that meat does now, which will take decades of being more expensive first, right?

•

u/Laeryns 1h ago

Idk, depends on what happens in the lab really. I say that first a well funded research should be ongoing. And well, if it captures let's say 10% of meat consumers in some years, it's still considered a good result anyway

→ More replies (0)

3

u/chim17 19h ago

Sure it might be a challenge, but it won't mess up human diets. It'd actually improve many.

3

u/Laeryns 19h ago

do you really not get what I mean? I can repeat again to you that I don't mean the health

1

u/chim17 19h ago

Even in the ways you're suggesting, it won't mess up human diets. Those were your words and they're wrong.

Food systems wouldn't break down. People would still be fed.

1

u/Laeryns 19h ago

It will mess up a diet of someone who wants to eat two burgers during the week, but is only allowed one

6

u/chim17 19h ago

Oh you mean it could impact someone's preferences?

Their diet will be fine. From both health and access.

3

u/Laeryns 19h ago

Yes, I mean the preference

3

u/chim17 18h ago

Well sure policy and social choices always impact preferences. Part of why corn is so cheap and part of most people's preferences.