We should all return to the diets of medieval peasants:
This, above all, means swapping most of the animal protein we eat for vegetable protein. It’s not painful, unless we make it so. Many British people used to eat dhal every day. They called it pease pudding, pease pottage or pea soup. As in South Asia, its ingredients varied from place to place and season to season. It’s just one component of a diet that offers plenty of variety – without trashing the great variety of life.
You know, the entirely organic, free range, one, that had everyone dead at 35.
And I think I know what’s wrong with these figures (and if this isn’t correct then do of course tell me):
The figures were so astounding that I refused to believe them. I found them buried in a footnote, and assumed at first that they must have been a misprint. So I checked the source, wrote to the person who first published them, and followed the citations. To my amazement, they appear to stand up.
A kilogramme of beef protein reared on a British hill farm can generate the equivalent of 643kg of carbon dioxide. A kilogramme of lamb protein produced in the same place can generate 749kg. One kilo of protein from either source, in other words, causes more greenhouse gas emissions than a passenger flying from London to New York.
Typically in these studies they measure the total emissions from all of the land used for the production. In he same way that that gigatonnes of water to make a burger counts all the rain that falls on all the grazing land used.
What they then don’t do is subtract from that water/emissions number whatever the water usage/emissions from the land would be without that production taking place. We thus get given the gross numbers, not the net.
So let us imagine that the uplands rewild, as George desires they do. Rabbits, deer and lynx presumably take over. And what are the emissions from that ecology, that we must then subtract from the current managed one, in order to reach the net figure?