If we actually just ate free-ranging, naturally occurring herds, then it wouldn't contribute to climate change. What contributes is clearing 70% of Brazil to raise imported cattle at a population density hundreds to thousands of times what they would ever achieve without feedlots.
A push toward grass-fed beef is fine, but you can't feed the world by eating grass-fed, local food only, nor organic, nor non-GMO, nor even sustainably raised. There isn't enough of it.
Comments
If we actually just ate free-ranging, naturally occurring herds, then it wouldn't contribute to climate change. What contributes is clearing 70% of Brazil to raise imported cattle at a population density hundreds to thousands of times what they would ever achieve without feedlots.
A push toward grass-fed beef is fine, but you can't feed the world by eating grass-fed, local food only, nor organic, nor non-GMO, nor even sustainably raised. There isn't enough of it.
So there is a difference between meat that was farmed in a manner that is no more carbon unfriendly than vegetables, and meat that is not.
We could have marketing campaigns for “green beef” and I’m suprised we don’t. It seems very strange.
My country doesn’t import beef, and all of the beef here is grass fed. Nor do we cut down any forests since they are all now protected.
Eating meat here is just fine then right?
And yet a significant number of people here are going vegetarian for climate change reasons.