ökotest so:

> Butter ist eine Klimasau
>
> Butter oder Margarine nehmen? Das macht nicht nur beim Preis einen Unterschied, sondern auch für die Umwelt. Butter ist eine Klimasau, man muss es so deutlich sagen. Die Herstellung von einem Kilo Butter verursacht 9,0 Kilo Treibhausgase, rechnet das Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg (Ifeu) vor. Bei Margarine sind es mit 2,8 Kilo weniger als ein Drittel.
>
> Butter gehört damit unter den ohnehin schon klimaschädlicheren tierischen Lebensmitteln zu denen mit dem größten CO2-Fußabdruck, weit vor Vollmilch (1,4 kg) oder Naturjoghurt (1,7 kg). Auch im Wasserverbrauch liegt die Butter dreifach so hoch wie Margarine.

ist in die 9kg auch eingerechnet das der "rest" auch benutzt wird? buttermilch heisst ja nicht umsonst so.

oder wird einfach alles - wie immer beim klima-LARP - doppelt und dreifach getrennt gezählt, damit klassische nahrungsmittel wieder ganz besonders schlecht dastehen?

@bonifartius I am not sure about the climate impact of butter, but you have encouraged me to learn more.

@nt5tm i don't have any definitive numbers. i only know enough to be dangerous ;)

from my experience those climate related numbers are always presented in a way that they are looking the most bad. this "institute" can say everything they like, they are not scientists but consultants in the first place.

the alternative for butter is margarine, which is made from plant based oils.

those don't grow on meadows. to replace milk based food, means to plow over at least some of the meadows and throw heaps of synthetic fertilizer on it. losing habitat and likely freeing more CO2. a recent no agenda show was called "upcycling ruminants" which really describes it well. cows convert pasture not usable by humans into food.

like i wrote in the first post, i think you will arrive at those dramatic numbers if you only look at one product. whey isn't just flushed down the drain usually. one also has to take into account how much you need of things. they talk about 1kg of butter. we need at least two weeks to use that much butter if we are using it in really liberal amounts.

i think if one applies a more holistic approach when analyzing these things, the numbers wouldn't look nearly as bad for milk as they do now - and much more shitty for "plant based" alternatives.

unfortunately it's about pushing an agenda, enabling some people to get rich and to control the food system. you remove food made by local farms with industry-made food by a few companies. milk products are of course industrialized too, but it's very often owned by cooperatives. even arla is a cooperative.

so there never will be true numbers on these things. even lovelock didn't believe the doomsday numbers anymore.

@nt5tm addendum:
this graphic just showed up in my feed (from https://mas.to/@edmat/109363905602973556 ) where milk isn't really bad compared to the plant oils here.

there are so many variables that you can twist the data in either direction. it's all bullshit. i don't even eat meat, but if i eat some grass fed beef or heritage pig breed from around where i live "climate impact" is virtually nonexistent. the eggs i eat are literally from chicken roaming a pasture. meat consumption is too high but if it would return to more traditional levels it's completely fine. replacing it completely is wrong.

what is worst is that the "solutions" only target common people. the rich still fly around in jets eating everything they like - to "climate conferences"/super hero LARPs. the industry still does what it likes. producing not only CO2, but so much toxic waste it isn't even funny.

IMHO, climate change will be the smallest problem if we continue the ultra-globalized technocratic way.