Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Some info about fish that I was not expecting in regards to the environment. I thought wild caught fish would be better for us and for the environment than farm fish.

      ...how a fish is caught or grown matters a lot. Fish caught by trawlers in the open ocean have a much higher environmental impact because these boats use "lots of diesel fuel for not a lot of fish," he says in an email. "Fish such as tuna and salmon caught on lines or with seine nets near the surface, and aquaculture fish such as salmon, steelhead, catfish and tilapia grown in ponds, lochs, fjords and ocean cages have moderate greenhouse gas emissions per serving that are about 6 times those of the typical plant-based foods."

      But most of the article is in line with what I believed already.

      Most of the time, the researchers found that foods that promote good health also tended to be better for the planet — and vice versa. While nuts require lots of water to produce, Tilman says, water was just one factor that affected their environmental ranking.

      "If water is going to be used to irrigate crops, it would seem better for it to be used to grow healthy crops," he says. Producing a serving of nuts has about five times the negative effects on the environment compared with producing a serving of vegetables, according to the study.

      That may sound like a lot, until you compare that to red meat; both processed and unprocessed, it's "uniformly bad," Tilman says. Producing a serving of processed red meat, the researchers found, has about 40 times the negative environmental impact of producing a serving of vegetables – and eating an extra daily serving raises the relative risk of overall mortality by 40 percent.

    • I think it’s interesting that nuts 🥜 came across so negatively ... until it was compared to red meat.

      Environmentally, cutting red meat consumption to no more than once a week has a huge impact. I think red meat is supposed to be four or five times as bad as chicken 🐔 .