LET’S GET TO THE MEAT OF THE MATTER

Adopting a vegan diet does very little to help the environment

Vegans are the ones who are wreaking havoc on the planet compared to omnivores.

IF you’ve ever suspected nothing is more annoying than prissy, sanctimonious vegans, it turns out you have company: Nature wants to punch them in the face, too.

As is often the case with virtue-signaling lifestyles, number crunching doesn’t quite justify the supposed benefits of granola crunching.

“When applied to an entire global population, the vegan diet wastes available land that could otherwise feed more people,” concluded news site Quartz in a review of a scientific study published in the journal Elementa that compared the sustainability of various eating patterns.

Just as global-warming hysteria leads to draconian restrictions and taxes that devastate the poor in order to provide conscience relief to progressives, totalitarian eating habits aren’t as sustainable as more moderate ones. For instance, trying to grow crops on land best suited for use as grazing land for cattle means wasting resources.

Considering 10 different diet patterns, the study concluded that veganism rated only in the middle of the pack, as the fifth-most sustainable. Two kinds of omnivore scenarios did better, as did “dairyfriendly vegetarian,” which came in first, and “egg- and dairy-friendly vegetarian,” which placed second.

As for the omnivores, the highest-rated (third overall) in terms of sustainability was the scenario in which nobody is a vegetarian, but everybody cuts back on meat modestly (by 13 percent). Red meat, poultry and fish would continue to be the leading protein sources, as they are now. So: Balance and moderation win, not gung-ho vegan evangelism.

Vegans’ all-time No. 1 favorite phrase —“That’s disgusting,” usually uttered as you’re about to tuck into a nice cheeseburger — is a familiar warning that you’re headed to dietary hell.

But vegans are the ones who are wreaking havoc on the planet compared to omnivores, at least the omnivores who maintain a sensible ratio of animal- and plant-based foods. Still, “I reduced my protein consumption by 13 percent” doesn’t lend quite the same eco-warrior thrill as announcing, with all the fervor of the crazy monk whipping himself in “The Da Vinci Code,” “I’m a vegan.”

Having a constricted, narrow view of things is an enduring characteristic of ecoworriers. Yet almost every choice we make connects to other choices and leads to measurable consequences. So driving might be more environmentally friendly than walking in some circumstances, green intellectual Chris Goodall explained in his book “How To Live a LowCarbon Life.” That’s because every activity requires energy. If you walked 1.5 miles to work, then drank a cup of milk to replace the calories you just expended, the carbon emissions involved in producing and distributing the milk would be about the same as if you drove your car the same distance. If two of you were traveling, “then the car would definitely be the more planet-friendly way to go,” science writer John Tierney reported in the New York Times.

As Tierney has also pointed out, it has long been obvious that the monetary cost of collecting, sorting, cleaning and redistributing various recyclables actually exceeds the savings associated with repeated use, hence his unforgettable piece “Recycling Is Garbage.”

“Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America: a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources,” Tierney wrote.

As for the emissions savings, almost all of them come from a handful of items: paper, cardboard and metal such as the aluminum in cans. Recycling plastics and glass, and com- posting, makes no environmental sense. Even the emissions reduction from recycling paper, cardboard and cans is peanuts when you consider the cost of recycling —$300 more per ton than putting it in a landfill.

“But what about my good intentions?” cry the recycling Nazis, the globalwarming alarmists, the getthat-disgusting-butter-outof-my-sight vegans. The response to that should be simple: “What about my planet?”