> Each kilogram of fish sticks produces about 1.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide, which “rivals the climate impact of tofu,” she says. Beef, by comparison, produces over 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide per kilogram

That's an u̶n̶f̶a̶i̶r̶ comparison. (apparently they did consider some of my complaints)

Does it take into account the additional co2 that fishing boats emit? Esp. given that they usually use far more harmful fuels than the gas used on roads.

Comparing a dish to the raw. material is unfair. Fish sticks should be compared to the environmental. impact of beef stir fry or sukiyaki or at the very least, an order of burger and fries (per kg)

Then there is the fact that caloric densities vary. comparisons should be made per portion, not unit weight.

co2 is also a complex topic. There is carbon that is recaptured in replanting crops. Beef also primarily produces methane, so I'm not sure if the co2 impact of beef is the proportional impact in methane or actual co2. Methane has a much shorter term. impact vs co2.

Lastly, trawling has massive ecosystem destroying impacts that don't show up on co2 counters. We must also consider that in sustainability calculations.

All in all, fish sticks might be sustainable, but these back of the napkin numbers are rarely representative of the complex systems that drive climate change.

____

to be fair, I love fish. They are healthier, easier to do sustainably than red meat, you need less of it to flavor food and it is easier to use 100% of it vs red meat animals. Lastly, salt water fish have straight up more flavor. (too much for some)

If seafloor trawling is banned and ships are moved over to better refined petroleum products, then fishing can be quite sustainable.