1. a single cow produces 250 grams of methane per day. Methane is insanely more dangerous to the environment than CO2. A single adult cow pollutes in a day as much as a car driven for 165 miles. And that's only for emissions.
2. As a cow does not pollute just what it emits, you need to add the lifecycle: cows need to be fed. 80% of the food we humans grow goes to feed animals, not humans. Beef gets the lion share. So we consumes insane amounts of money, fertilizers, gas, just to feed cows, that pollute like crazy anyway. The amount of water cattle consume (from drinking to the one needed to grow food) is also extreme.
3. Cows produce a lot of waste, that ends up in rivers. Along fertilizers (mostly used to grow food for cattle anyway), it pollutes so much that waters around souther US are essentially dead.
4. By mass, beef alone, outmatches every single land animal on this planet, combined. You could put on a scale every single tiger, domestic dog, rabbit, squirrel, horse, hyppo, kangaroo, etc, etc, etc on the planet. They would weight less than the cows we grow.
4. Red meat is a category 1 carcinogenic. You should eat it rarely. I don't know where you get your nutritional facts, maybe from Joe Rogan?
In essence, you demonstrate fully my point: we humans don't want to know really what our impact on the planet is, and we're happily distracted into the "just buy an electric SUV" trolling.
It is not. There are no studies with simply meat. They count burgers and processed stuff. I literally do 90% carnivore so eat nothing processed. I only put salt on the meat.
> You could put on a scale every single tiger, domestic dog, rabbit, squirrel, horse, hyppo, kangaroo, etc, etc, etc on the planet.
Carnivore animals rarely are eaten. Horse/rabbit are low fat. Beef & lamb are the two most popular that are available nearly everywhere.
> I don't know where you get your nutritional facts
The best diet for mental health is animal based keto diet and carnivore diet (only red meat actually!, maybe some fish which is even more expensive often)
The diet is used for kids/adults with refractory epilepsy & serious mental disorders like schizophrenia/bipolar/eating disorders, diabetes (it's easy actually but there are many potential people for this).
--------
A short example: The only way to do vegan keto diet for epilepsy/schizophrenia/bipolar, is to eat protein powder, because there is no non-processed vegan food that has protein and is low carb.
The focus of the discussion is topic is how dangerous is cattle farming to the planet. The answer is very, I gave you numbers, you're free to debunk them.
The topic of whether red meat is category 1 or 2 carcinogenic is less of an interest to this thread.
If you want to keep your diet, keep it, it doesn't change it has an insane impact on the planet in terms of greenhouse gases production and resource consumption. It kills the planet, whether you like it or not. It's unsustainable.
Beef can be raised carbon negative, it’s just more expensive. Maybe not scalable to 8 billion, I don’t know, but the man buying meat from a butcher buying from small farms raising grass fed cows is not the problem (it’s the corn that makes them fart, can’t digest as well)
1. There's no evidence that carnivore diet has any long term benefit, as this 2026 article that reviews all of the available literature points out. In fact there's more evidence of the contrary.
> The Carnivore Diet may offer short-term health benefits but carries substantial risks of nutrient deficiencies, reduced intake of health-promoting phytochemicals, and the development of cardiovascular disease. At this time, long-term adherence to a CD cannot be recommended.
2. On the contrary, the mediterranean diet is one of the most studied and backed with more evidence behind its long term health benefits.
3. In any case the topic is climate change, which agriculture and cattle are very strongly responsible for as cattle farming produces both lots of greenhouses as well as being very resource intensive.
Which is fine. But don't pretend it to be otherwise with your social media diet.
It's not social media diet, it was invented to help children with epilepsy. The same diet works in other scenarios (diabetes 1 & 2, bipolar, schizophrenia, adhd are some examples).
Again, it's very hard to form correct opinions when you're not in the trenches and just read stuff online.
A (complex) example: are bad blood lipids actually bad when you're very fit? This is being researched, might take some years. It's a complex topic, see "lean mass hyper responder" or "The cholesterol code" documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Z8bUb1P94 . (this is the cardiovascular angle)
> 2. On the contrary, the mediterranean diet is one of the most studied and backed with more evidence behind its long term health benefits.
Yet it doesn't work in any of the scenarios I said.
It's not a bad diet, but it's a random diet IMO, no thought went into it, or some evolutionary design (I live in a mediterranean country and ate it by default).
ps: the mediterranean should work on type 2 diabetes. But what happens if eating even some plain/simple/good carbs/sweets/fruits still triggers your brain so high-carb food remains an addiction in your head? The only solution might be to quit even the "good" carbs, so after some time, you have no triggers/urges for bad food and can live in peace.
Let's cut the chase: if you have medical conditions for which *a doctor* prescribes you a carnivore diet, referring to the original comment, you can be exempt from the carbon tax.
No, that's your opinion not backed by any science.
As I posted you a comprehensive review of carnivore diet literature there's no evidence of any long term benefit, in fact, there's evidence of the contrary.
You really sound like somebody who takes advice from Joe Rogan and Tik tok instead of going to a doctor.
Continue believing the narratives and data that back your preferences or your anecdotal experience I guess.
There is no literature on carnivore, it's just people who eat more meat while still eating "normal" food.
While carnivore is eating only meat.
Your paper just said that you may have issues with blood lipids and stuff, there's no real measurements if those blood levels end up as real issues.
Example:
> In contrast, a systematic review by Palmer (2025) [12] concluded that the long-term adverse effects of red and processed meat consumption—such as increased risks of type 2 diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, inflammation, and atherosclerosis—clearly outweigh any potential benefits [12].
Putting diabetes & obesity in there is literally insane! One big issue on carnivore or keto is it's very hard to gain weight, because protein & fat are very fulfilling.
The whole study is always "eating more meat might do this", and never considering real carnivore where you eat nothing else. And even on cases on carnivore, most of the things were extrapolating from the transitory period (hint: staying 30 years carnivore and transitioning to mediterrean also has issues)
Again, it's very hard when you know no details whatsoever.
This is a mongodb moment for you my man (going by marketing), but it's ok, you just don't know better, and don't have the tools or time or ability or the necessity! to try anything else.
Heme iron and its link to oxidative stress has been re-evaluated over time.
Vegetables contain non-heme iron (Fe 3+), which is reduced to (Fe 2+) by the body on demand for absorption. In contrast, heme iron is already in its reduced state (Fe 2+). Because of its high bioavailability excess heme iron reacts with peroxides to produce highly reactive free radicals (Fenton reaction).
I was responding to the carcinogenic aspect of meat, not to you personal diet. You can ignore it ("It is not") but it doesn't make Fenton reaction less real.
I see many recycled misheard clichés here, starting by the "red meat is carcinogenic" mantra, that nobody serious has proven still, and that at this point is just pseudoscience.
> By mass, beef alone, outmatches every single land animal on this planet, combined
This is most probably false. To start you are repeating a claim that you didn't really understood. One problem is that you are confusing animals with mammals. Other is that you are confusing animals with vertebrates. In fact, we really don't have decent data on most invertebrates, and almost no reliable data in many vertebrates.
> Cows produce a lot of waste, that ends up in rivers
In the real life, most people use this on fields and agriculture, as crop fertilizers.
And the point 2 is missing a couple basic rules of ecology.
1) Big animals use energy more efficiently than small animals on the same category and,
2) Herbivores suffer a lot of pressure to feed themselves accurately. We can't just eat enough zucchini to replace beef, because we can't digest cellulose, because our small gut is not well adapted to this, and because most vegetables are basically water. The day is just too short.
1. a single cow produces 250 grams of methane per day. Methane is insanely more dangerous to the environment than CO2. A single adult cow pollutes in a day as much as a car driven for 165 miles. And that's only for emissions.
2. As a cow does not pollute just what it emits, you need to add the lifecycle: cows need to be fed. 80% of the food we humans grow goes to feed animals, not humans. Beef gets the lion share. So we consumes insane amounts of money, fertilizers, gas, just to feed cows, that pollute like crazy anyway. The amount of water cattle consume (from drinking to the one needed to grow food) is also extreme.
3. Cows produce a lot of waste, that ends up in rivers. Along fertilizers (mostly used to grow food for cattle anyway), it pollutes so much that waters around souther US are essentially dead.
4. By mass, beef alone, outmatches every single land animal on this planet, combined. You could put on a scale every single tiger, domestic dog, rabbit, squirrel, horse, hyppo, kangaroo, etc, etc, etc on the planet. They would weight less than the cows we grow.
4. Red meat is a category 1 carcinogenic. You should eat it rarely. I don't know where you get your nutritional facts, maybe from Joe Rogan?
In essence, you demonstrate fully my point: we humans don't want to know really what our impact on the planet is, and we're happily distracted into the "just buy an electric SUV" trolling.