Cutting red meat and dairy from the diet does more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than being a locavore (eating locally produced food).
A study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology entitled Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States concludes that the choices we make as to what we eat have a much greater impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with getting food to our table than the idea of buying our food locally does.
And, no surprise to vegans like myself, the production of red meat and dairy products once again turn out to be the worst offenders when it comes to food that has a terrible environmental impact. This study shows that the production of red meat and dairy accounts for fully 50% of the total greenhouse gas emissions involved with getting food to Americans tables, regardless of whether they are produced locally or not.
Proponents of the locavore movement (made famous by people like Michael Pollan) like to tout that buying food locally reduces the environmental footprints of our diets by reducing greenhouse gases emitted in the transport of our food.
While it is still a great idea to buy produce and other food locally for many reasons, (supporting farmers, maintaining green space, supporting local economies, reducing dependence on oil, etc) this study shows that the production of red meat and dairy for our diets are much bigger culprits of greenhouse gas emissions in the food supply chain than transportation.
Specifically, this study found that transporting food is only responsible for 11% of the total greenhouse gas emissions of food production, whereas the production of red meat and dairy products are responsible for a combined total of 48% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to the average Americans diet. There is a great graph showing the greenhouse gas emission of various food sources.
Here is a link to a Science Friday interview with Christopher Weber, one of the authors of the study (you can listen to the podcast in the upper left corner). Also, here is the article from the journal about the study, as well as a National Geographic article summarizing the study.
From the articles:
When it comes to global warming, focusing simply on where food comes from will make only a small difference, the study's authors say.
"In terms of the average American diet, 'food miles' are not so important as what you're eating," said study leader Christopher Weber of Carnegie Mellon University.
I think this is a really good thing for people to think of. I think it is just one of several compelling environmental reasons that eating foods other than red meat and dairy are far superior choices for the environment.
""Dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household's food-related climate footprint than 'buying local,'" the study concludes.
Of course the study does state that eating fish and chicken have less of an impact on the environment than eating beef or dairy does
They found that beef is responsible for about one-and-a-half times more warming from greenhouse gases per household than chicken or fish, for example.
But I think there are many other well established reasons why fish and chicken are much more environmentally damaging food products than purely vegetarian food products, (such as the impact large scale farming of animal based foods has on waste water pollution, the use of antibiotics and growth hormones in poultry production and fish farming, the intense continued over fishing of coastal waters, the threat parasites and pollution from fish farming operations pose to nearby wild fish populations, the list goes on and on).
I am disappointed that the authors seem to go out of their way to draw an overly moderate conclusion. While stating on the one hand that
"Shifting less than one day per week's worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more [greenhouse gas] reduction than buying all locally sourced food," Weber and Matthews wrote.
They fail to make the obvious leap that cutting out most or all meat and dairy would have a much more substantial impact at a time when scientists and pundits agree a drastic change in our environmental footprint is imperative.
And of course, not surprisingly to those of us who pay attention to such things, the authors also go out of their way to try and avoid sounding like nutty vegan advocates by stating
"We're not trying to tell people they need to go vegan now," he added. "We're saying there are a lot of alternatives."
I think this study makes a strong argument for the environmental benefits of cutting red meat and dairy out of our diets. Taken as part of a larger and long established body of evidence for the environmental impacts of other kinds of animal products, I think this study should be clear evidence to anyone concerned about the environment that a purely vegetarian diet is one of the best things we can do to reduce our environmental footprint.