2,956
edits
(Created page with "We know that ''in general'', plant-based diets could use less land<sup>[see why]</sup>, which is crucial for stopping deforestation. But not all plant-based diets are equally beneficial. It depends what crops are involved, how high their yields are, and where they are grown. What are some diets that would really help the most? {{minor|Also note: In some cases, the {{uw|"production configuration"|i.e. which of...") |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
We know that ''in general'', plant-based diets could [[Reduce the amount of land required to feed the world|use less land<sup>[see why]</sup>]], which is crucial for stopping [[deforestation]]. But not all plant-based diets are equally beneficial. It depends what crops are involved, how high their yields are, and where they are grown. What are some diets that would really help the most? | We know that ''in general'', plant-based diets could [[Reduce the amount of land required to feed the world|use less land<sup>[see why]</sup>]], which is crucial for stopping [[deforestation]]. But not all plant-based diets are equally beneficial. It depends what crops are involved, how high their yields are, and where they are grown. What are some diets that would really help the most? | ||
{{minor|Also note: In some cases, the {{ | {{minor|Also note: In some cases, the {{t2|"production configuration"|i.e. which of the crops are grown in what region of the world}} might make a big difference, even with the same {{t2|per-capita diet|i.e. the global production totals for each food}}. If so, we could start a separate discussion on [[how to economically encourage an optimal production configuration]].}} {{talk|also make a note about weird cases that would encourage reforestation in some areas but deforestation in others (which is not a good tradeoff if it's a loss of old-growth and a gain of not-so-biodiverse new forest)}} | ||
==Consensus== | ==Consensus== |