How many Sunday newspapers would equal one Big Mac and which is more costly to the environment?

Question

This calculation would help put into perspective the relative damage to rain forrests.

Answer 1

Depending on where you got the sunday paper I am sure eating one will be more filling than a Big Mac.  Some comunities may provide a few meals and less polution.  Again, variables are in play.  Some papers come with coated inserts that would hinder recycling and cause polution. The Big Mac containers are now paper based.  Paper and trees are a renewable resource.  Trees can be planted and grown over and over again. However, Big Macs help decrease the surplus population.  The consumption and polution rate in directly proportional to the population rate.  It is tough to call but I will say newspapers.

Answer 2

How are Big Macs harmfull to the enviroment? Not everything is harmfull.

Answer 3

Trees don't need fossil-fuel-based fertilizers like corn does. The cattle used to make the meat ate several pounds of corn just to make that 1/4 pound of beef. This is just one of the several ways the Big Mac is more destructive to the environment than newspaper.

Newspaper-making is a dirty process, but most of the inputs are renewable.

But I think you are wondering more about deforestation. There isn't really much deforestation involved in Big Macs in the USA. Most cattle are raised in feed lots, not grazing on former rainforest.

And, for rainforests, there are many complicating questions: are you concerned about bio-diversity, or global warming? It is possible to replace some rainforest with faster-growing crops that help sequester more carbon.

I don't know which numbers you want, so I leave it to a better answerer to try to offer some.