Vegan diet causes global warming!

Good day all. A new study indicated that a Vegan diet is far more harmful to the environment than a diet which includes meat. Yes, it turns out that vegetables cause global warming!

This might seem to be an oxymoron, that lettuce and tomatoes will cause the Earth to explode into flames, but in a story by the British newspaper, The Independent, that might just be the case.

Eating a healthier diet rich in fruit and vegetables could actually be more harmful to the environment than consuming some meat, a US study has claimed. Lettuce is “over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon”, according to researchers from the Carnegie Mellon University who analysed the impact per calorie of different foods in terms of energy cost, water use and emissions.

Published in the Environment Systems and Decisions journal, the study goes against the grain of recent calls for humans to quit eating meat to curb climate change. Researchers did not argue against the idea people should be eating less meat, or the fact that livestock contributes to an enormous proportion of global emissions – up to 51 per cent according to some studies.

But they found that eating only the recommended “healthier” foods prescribed in recent advice from the US Department of Agriculture increased a person’s impact on the environment across all three factors – even when overall calorie intake was reduced.

So, even if you starve yourself, and only eat politically correct Tofu, your vegan diet is actually much worse for the environment than my choice of eating BBQ from the Aloha Snackbar in Utah. So, how did they come to these conclusions that are probably causing militant vegan’s heads to implode?

The experts examined how growing, processing and transporting food; sales and service; and household storage and use all take a toll on the environment for different foods. Paul Fischbeck, study co-author and CMU’s professor of social and decisions sciences, said: “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. “Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.”

Apparently, these were not the results, or the droids, they were looking for.

The initial findings of the study were “surprising”, according to senior research fellow Anthony Froggatt at Chatham House, an independent think-tank which is currently running a project looking at the link between meat consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the authors, the study analysed the impact on the environment from changing the average US diet to three new “dietary scenarios”.

And the scenarios are?

Simply reducing the number of calories consumed, without changing the proportion of meat and other food types, cut combined emissions, energy and water use by around 9 per cent.

So if you starve, then you could save the planet. Under that scenario, most of the 3^rd world population must be great environmentalists.

Perhaps understandably, maintaining calorie intake but completely shifting to healthy foods increased energy use by 43 per cent, water use by 16 per cent and emissions by 11 per cent.

And there goes the heads of all the moonbats in San Francisco, Seattle, New York, etc.

But surprisingly, even if people cut out meat and reduced their calories to USDA-recommended levels, their environmental impact would increase across energy use (38 per cent), water (10 per cent) and emissions (6 per cent).

[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbp_JQ7RxqM’]

While I was reading through the article, I decided to peruse the comments section. I really shouldn’t have, I think I lost at least 50 IQ points reading the comments from the Moonbat community. Well, I plan on doing my part for the planet. I’m going out and eat a steak.

~Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

[yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]