Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 16;11:584353. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584353

TABLE 6.

Comparison of total mean environmental impact (GHG emissions, land occupation, water use) per practitioner group for 1 month of eating animal-proteins, with gender as a covariate.

Fisher’s LSD (p-value) [CI for difference]
Yearly savings NP vs. AM
Meditation practice n Mean Month SD 1 2 3 Mean Year Compares to
GHG EMISSIONS (KG CO2-EQ)
1. NP 120 47.31 36.42 567.7 215.52 Return flight from London to Frankfurt
2. IM 82 31.9 32.21 0.044 [0.222, 17.68] 382.8
3. AM 92 29.35 26.41 0.007 [3.14, 20.04] 0.566 [−6.40, 11.67] 352.2
LAND OCCUPATION (M2*A)
1. NP 120 48.88 37.66 586.5 216.12 Area needed to keep 4 free-range hens on grass pasture, or 293 hens in a Sykes henyard (excluding production of 6t of straw per year for henyard)
2. IM 82 32.95 33.29 0.042 [0.34, 18.40] 395.4
3. AM 92 30.87 27.05 0.010 [2.80, 20.28] 0.648 [−7.17, 11.51] 370.4
WATER USE (M3)
1. NP 120 0.39 0.30 4.68 1.8 12 days of UK average household water use for one individual
2. IM 82 0.26 0.27 0.041 [0.003, 0.147] 3.12
3. AM 92 0.24 0.22 0.008 [0.025, 0.164] 0.607 [−0.055, 0.094 2.88

The three columns on the right compare the mean consumption per year and exemplify the reduction of environmental impact by the advanced meditators vs. non-practitioners. NP, non-practitioners; IM, Infrequent/novice meditators; AM, Advanced meditators (Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, 2017; EnergySavingTrust, 2013; Plamondon, 2016).