Cow milk is a battleground topic for global warming and climate change.

Gen Z has been encouraged to ditch milk to cut back on industrial cattle farming and methane emissions. They're also told that farming cattle is inhumane.

The milk alternatives (almond, etc.) have been framing it this way commercially, but there is also a lot of grassroots campaigning.

I suspect that local milk is better for the environment (or less bad depending on how you look at it) than almond milk in most cases:

By far the largest producer of almonds is the USA, I think California mostly, which in itself has a large environmental impact, not least because of the water required. I am in the UK so I can reasonably assume that a lot of the almond milk I see in supermarkets comes from Californian almonds somehow shipped half across the world, whereas there are cows within walking distance from my home. And, of course, in any case there is no actual dietary need for people to drink either milk or milk alternatives (though most people here would argue that milk is required in tea...)

Frankly, this is no more than commercial interests vs. other commercial interests and most people are not interested in complexity, they want simple 'solutions' to feel good.

No, from a carbon perspective, how you get your food home from the store overwhelms how the food got to the store because the last mile is using 5000lb vehicles to transport 10lbs of groceries whereas all previous steps use 1:1 or less ratios.

Not sure what the 'no' refers to, but I suspect that "how you get your food home from the store" is not relevant in a comparison since that would be the same whatever I buy.

Not even close, cow’s milk has significantly higher impacts than the plant-based alternatives across all metrics, including processing, transporting, etc.

https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks

This link is not very informative.

For instance, it states that producing one litre of dairy milk requires more water than producing one litre of almond milk. OK, and? In itself it means little. Almond farming is creating big water pressure in California, which is already water-stressed. Is having cows in England creating the same water issue? I don't know.

It's not clear what the proportion of transport is in the total emissions. 'Transport' is also vague as it can go from local to intercontinental, as mentioned.

> If you want to reduce the environmental footprint of your diet, switching to plant-based alternatives is a good option.

That strikes me again as avoiding the glaringly obvious option: reduce/stop milk consumption. Otherwise, it sounds like marketing for one product over another one.

Pushing anything almond "for the environment" seems like it's a slap in the face of California, to me.

I think this poster's point is that almond milk uses an insane amount of water relative to what it produces -- a problem for a region having notable shortages of water.

If by "the poster" you mean me, the person you replied to, then yes that is what I was alluding to.

Beef production uses massively more water, it’s just that, like the sugar on your cereal boxes, they split it up into smaller segments.

Alfalfa: Beef/Dairy

Pasture: Beef/dairy

Corn: Beef/dairy

Grain: Beef/dairy

Alfalfa alone uses more water than almonds… it’s just called alfalfa instead of beef.

https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CA-Ag-Water-U...

> They're also told that farming cattle is inhumane.

The way you formulate this statement makes it sound like there is some controversy or room for interpretation here.

Put yourself in the position of a typical milk producing cow. Imagine giving birth to a child that's taken away from you and you never see him/her again (usually to be instantly slaughtered). All just so you start lactating and the milk can be extracted from you.

I still drink mill and eat cheese, but it's pretty damn gruesome if you put any thought into it.

No need to beat around the bush. Dairy/cattle farming contributes to climate change and is inhumane.

But.. I love milk.

To be fair it is Australian milk, I don't know the difference.

I suppose for the last 10y I've been drinking above average amounts of milk and I really prefer our 1.5% over the 3.5%. Perfectly fine milk taste for me and there should absolutely no gobs of cream in there, ugh - I also don't drink cream. Just saying that your opinion about that is just that. But then again I've never tried American milk of any kind.

That said I've switched to oat milk for the last 1-2 years and I now prefer it, so maybe I should also stop having an opinion.

Back in the old times where humans still worked in an office together, I had milk that had a creamline on it still. I honestly thought the milk went bad and was going to toss it until a lady almost yelled at me to stop me from doing that. She grew up on a farm and told me that this was the mark of high quality milk.

I tasted the creamline. Absolute game changer. Tastes incredible in cereal especially.

Cannot for the life of me find milk like this, even at the high-end grocery stores like Whole Foods. Not like this would matter anyway, since most people can barely afford regular-ass eggs at the moment.

You can definitely get it at Whole Foods in California, idk about the rest of the country.

> Don't get me started on 2% milk, which should simply not exist.

Can you explain? Are you saying that that's too low in fat to be good? If so, why not also be against skim milk?

Also, can you speak to your opinion on organic vs "regular" milk in the US? I've only ever had US milk, but organic tastes way better than "regular". Organic skim is richer and creamier than whole "regular" milk, so maybe your comment doesn't include organic?

But cheese is fine. #hypocrisy