Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the beat-it,-don't-eat-it dept.

Phys.org:

Dr. Helen Harwatt, farmed animal law and policy fellow at Harvard Law School, advises that getting protein from plant sources instead of animal sources would drastically help in meeting climate targets and reduce the risk of overshooting temperature goals.

For the first time, Dr. Harwatt proposes a three-step strategy to gradually replace animal proteins with plant-sourced proteins, as part of the commitment to mitigate climate change. These are:

1) Acknowledging that current numbers of livestock are at their peak and will need to decline ('peak livestock').

2) Set targets to transition away from livestock products starting with foods linked with the highest greenhouse gas emissions such as beef, then cow's milk and pig meat ('worst-first' approach).

3) Assessing suitable replacement products against a range of criteria including greenhouse gas emission targets, land usage, and public health benefits ('best available food' approach).

Harwatt further elaborates that recent evidence shows, in comparison with the current food system, switching from animals to plants proteins, could potentially feed an additional 350 million people in the US alone.

You can eat plants or insects, but not meat.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:29AM

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:29AM (#767132)

    The French farmers are the masters of getting what they want, but farmers everywhere are pretty good at it.

    A quick search tells me that the US spends $20 billions per year on agricultural subsidies, which sounds like a massive under-estimate to me, but it still a lot of money.

    In my own country the farmers don't get any direct subsidies (which tends to make them much more efficient) but every summer, when it stops raining for 6 weeks or so, you can bet my tax dollar that they will be on TV whining about "how dry it's been this year" and how they need "support" because of the "important role they play in the economy".

    If the business I work for was run that badly we would go broke, and a good thing too.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2