Via the PB&J campaign comes this New York Times chart showing the carbon cost of various foods:
Not surprising stuff -- save maybe for the carbon cost of cheese -- but well-presented. As usual, you're dealing with a simple inefficiency. Growing grain and eating grain is more efficient than growing grain to feed to animals. Animals, after all, will use the only part of the grain to make us food -- the rest of it will go to bone, and fur, and eyes, and breathing, and teeth. As such, the total energy cost of animal is far higher. Meanwhile, animal is getting far more popular:
The carbon implication is that vegetarianism is best, but if people insist on eating meat, chicken is far better than beef. This puts the carbon argument at odd with the animal rights movement. For them, chicken is far worse than beef. It takes a human being years to eat a cow but only a single dinner to consume a chicken. The death toll of a poultry diet is far higher than a beef diet. And chicken are treated far worse than cows.
Not surprising stuff -- save maybe for the carbon cost of cheese -- but well-presented. As usual, you're dealing with a simple inefficiency. Growing grain and eating grain is more efficient than growing grain to feed to animals. Animals, after all, will use the only part of the grain to make us food -- the rest of it will go to bone, and fur, and eyes, and breathing, and teeth. As such, the total energy cost of animal is far higher. Meanwhile, animal is getting far more popular:The carbon implication is that vegetarianism is best, but if people insist on eating meat, chicken is far better than beef. This puts the carbon argument at odd with the animal rights movement. For them, chicken is far worse than beef. It takes a human being years to eat a cow but only a single dinner to consume a chicken. The death toll of a poultry diet is far higher than a beef diet. And chicken are treated far worse than cows. 
