> If someone is still eating eggs, dairy and fish they are not 95% of the way to being vegan.

95% is obviously not a real number, but it's not far off when you actually look at the environmental impact of different foods[0]

> And cost? What makes you think being vegan is more expensive than eating animal products?

I should specify that being vegan and remaining healthy is more expensive than eating animal products. You could probably survive on lentils and be ok... for a while. But your diet will not be balanced. To eat a balanced vegan diet, you will need to buy a lot of fresh foods in comparatively higher quantities, and the cost adds up. Semi-vegetarians and pesco-vegetarians seem to have the most balanced diets[1]

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climat...

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967195/

If someone is pesco-vegetarian and eating a lot of dairy, especially cheese, and fish, then their environmental footprint would be way higher than someone (a vegan) who is not eating those things. The NY times article you linked shows just that.

You'll notice that I didn't say "your environmental impact will automatically be reduced to near that of a vegan diet by eating a pesco-vegetarian diet."

Changing to a new category of diet does not absolve you of the need to make responsible decisions. You could technically be a very wasteful vegan and have a higher carbon footprint than an omnivore. You could also be a responsible human being and eat a conservative vegetarian diet that is roughly equivalent to a vegan diet but much easier to execute.

Why "change category" and constantly be chasing the next trendy label? Just eat less meat. When you do eat meat, eat higher welfare meat that's farmed locally (fewer food miles). Why do people take everything to extremes?

Because most people are vegan for animals not for environment or health, so it's not that they are taking things to extremes, but rather that being responsible for only the occasional death or abuse of another animal isn't an option.

The context of most of these threads on HN is environmental impact. And invariably, vegans show up with an "all or nothing" attitude. I understand if environmental impact is not their primary motivation, but then they should say so.

>You'll notice that I didn't say "your environmental impact will automatically be reduced to near that of a vegan diet by eating a pesco-vegetarian diet."

Erm, yes, you pretty much did. We are talking in the context of certain food choices being more environmentally friendly, and you said a pesco-vegetarian is 95% of the way to being vegan.

Getting the same amount of protein is difficult? I've never seen someone try to argue going vegan is cheaper then eating meat. Maybe cheaper than eating steaks, but chicken breast/thighs and ground beef? Eggs are also an excellent source of protein, it comes out to about a $1 for 80g of protein.

How much protein do you think you need? Everyone is sucked on to the whole protein protein protein thing like it's all that the human body needs, especially Americans. It's fucking ridiculous. Try worrying more about fiber and other nutrients and there might be less obesity and diabetes. BTW, lentils and beans are cheap and full of protein.

Eggs are pretty much the most cost effective source of protein in existence, hence bodybuilders have traditionally eaten large quantities of them.

Cost effective for who? If one day we factored in the cost of damage to the environment or the cost to the living creatures being abused in order to supply all those eggs, or the cost of the extra burden on hospitals due to all the cholesterol people are eating,the price would go up considerably.