He/him. Chinese born, Canadian citizen. University student studying environmental science, hobbyist programmer. Marxist-Leninist.

  • 12 Posts
  • 3 Comments
Joined 3Y ago
cake
Cake day: Oct 03, 2019

help-circle
rss

Yeah no. Biden Administration isn’t going to do anything. The only way that the US can actually start seriously contributing to conservation is by first going through a fundamental overhaul of the government to something not hanging by the marionette strings of gigacorporations.



Real talk, when I die, take whatever organs are usable for transplant (I’m registered as an organ donor) and throw the rest of me in an anaerobic digester to make fertilizer and methane for electricity. Throw me in the green bin basically. I don’t need my body to be preserved for any length of time, I’m dead, what do I care?


Yeah. While this may or may not be the largest single event methane release, it’s definitely a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the bullshit we’re doing to the planet.








cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/458886 > > Indeed, when independent researchers at Johns Hopkins University decided to get the best estimates they could by combing through the published literature, they found that in the 11 life cycle analyses they turned up, the average greenhouse gas footprint from plant-based meats was just 7 percent of beef for an equivalent amount of protein. The plant-based products were also more climate-friendly than pork or chicken — although less strikingly so, with greenhouse gas emissions just 57 percent and 37 percent, respectively, of those for the actual meats. > > > > Similarly, the Hopkins team found that producing plant-based meats used less water: 23 percent that of beef, 11 percent that of pork, and 24 percent that of chicken for the same amount of protein. There were big savings, too, for land, with the plant-based products using 2 percent that of beef, 18 percent that of pork, and 23 percent that of chicken for a given amount of protein. The saving of land is important because, if plant-based meats end up claiming a significant market share, the surplus land could be allowed to revert to forest or other natural vegetation; these store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and contribute to biodiversity conservation. Other studies show that plant-based milks offer similar environmental benefits over cow’s milk. > > ... > > > Soy milk, for example, requires just 7 percent as much land and 4 percent as much water as real milk, while emitting only 31 percent as much greenhouse gas. Oat milk needs 8 percent of the land and 8 percent of the water, while releasing just 29 percent as much greenhouse gas. Even almond milk often regarded as a poor choice because almond orchards guzzle so much fresh water—uses just 59 percent as much water as real milk. > > > > But not all plant-based milks deliver the same nutrient punch. While soy milk provides almost the same amount of protein as cow’s milk, almond milk provides only about 20 percent as much—an important consideration for some. On a per-unit-protein basis, therefore, almond milk actually generates more greenhouse gas and uses more water than cow’s milk.



Paper: "Vegan versus meat-based dog food: Guardian-reported indicators of health" (AKA, is feeding dogs a vegan diet actually as unhealthy as the media claims?)
Abstract: > Alternative pet foods may offer benefits concerning environmental sustainability and the welfare of animals processed into pet foods. However, some worry these may compromise the welfare of pets. We asked 2,639 dog guardians about one dog living with them, for at least one year. Among 2,596 involved in pet diet decision-making, pet health was a key factor when choosing diets. 2,536 provided information relating to a single dog, fed a conventional meat (1,370 = 54%), raw meat (830 = 33%) or vegan (336 = 13%) diet for at least one year. We examined seven general indicators of ill health: unusual numbers of veterinary visits, medication use, progression onto a therapeutic diet after initial maintenance on a vegan or meat-based diet, guardian opinion and predicted veterinary opinion of health status, percentage of unwell dogs and number of health disorders per unwell dog. **Dogs fed conventional diets appeared to fare worse than those fed either of the other two diets. Dogs fed raw meat appeared to fare marginally better than those fed vegan diets.** However, there were statistically significant differences in average ages. Dogs fed raw meat were younger, which has been demonstrated to be associated with improved health outcomes. Additionally, non-health related factors may have improved apparent outcomes for dogs fed raw meat, for three of seven general health indicators. We also considered the prevalence of 22 specific health disorders, based on predicted veterinary assessments. Percentages of dogs in each dietary group considered to have suffered from health disorders were 49% (conventional meat), 43% (raw meat) and 36% (vegan). Significant evidence indicates that raw meat diets are often associated with dietary hazards, including nutritional deficiencies and imbalances, and pathogens. **Accordingly, the pooled evidence to date indicates that the healthiest and least hazardous dietary choices for dogs, are nutritionally sound vegan diets.** Holy shit!! Might be a good paper to reference against the argument that feeding dogs vegan diets is animal cruelty.