When you crunch the numbers, a plant-based diet always wins. Here's more proof.
At last year's PopTech conference, Michael Pollan suggested that "a vegan in a Hummer has a lighter carbon footprint than a meat eater in a Prius." While his pithy quote went viral, it was incorrect. And when Adam Pasick questioned the math, he called Eshel for a fact-check.
This year, Eshel made a quick presentation showing how meat-based diets far exceed the reactive Nitrogen (Nr) and acreage used in creating plant-based diets. His three-pronged solution: 1) eat plants, 2) avoid animal products, and 3) favor legislation promote one and two. I caught up with him afterward and he told me that making a difference can't just affect diners at a few restaurants—it's got to cover a lot of ground.
"That’s the thing with food," Eshel says. "If you can’t see it from a satellite, then it’s not making a difference."
\n
While plant-based diets may be the “low-hanging fruit” for eating environmentally, he also said not all fruits and vegetables are created equal. Below is a chart that depicts the Nr and yield per acre of various plants and vegetables (those represented with blue dots have a higher footprint than black dots). It's certainly worth thinking about.
Photograph by Flickr user (cc) kk