UN’s Top Climate Scientist Urges People to Combat Climate Change by Eating Less Meat
This is a guest post by Meg Hamill who works at LandPaths, in Partnership with The Open Space District of Sonoma County, California
Monday evening, the UN’s top Climate Scientist, Rajendra Pachuari, will speak in London at a meeting organized by Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), urging people to fight global warming by taking meat off their menu.
Dr. Pachuari has recently been re-appointed to his second, six-year term as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC collects and evaluates climate data for governments around the world, and was the recipient of the Nobel Prize in 2007, along with Al Gore. Dr. Pachuari told the BBC: “I want to highlight the fact that among options for mitigating climate change, changing diets is something one should consider.”
UN data says that meat production accounts for about 18% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, topping even transportation, which accounts for 13% of worldwide emissions. The UN included all aspects of meat production, when arriving at the 18% figure: clearing land, creation and transportation of fertilizers, burning fuels in farm vehicles, and the emissions coming directly from cows and sheep.
- » Read more on Action & Activism
- » See peer reviews of Vitamins, Supplements and Herbal Remedies at Green Home
There are three main greenhouse gases involved in meat production: methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. People have begun to think about ways of farming meat that produce less emissions. One possibility to is genetically engineer cattle that produce less methane. The biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions from meat production, however, is land clearance, which will likely continue as long as the demand for meat continues to rise.
CIWF’s ambassador Joyce D’Silva told the BBC: “Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realize that changing what’s on their plate could have an even bigger effect.”
Image Credit: Photo from Freefoto under a Creative Commons License
While he is correct about the impact of eating meat, and while he is the head of the IPCC, Pachuari is himself not a climate scientist. He plays more of an administrative role.
my West coast parental units have been complete vegetarians for 30 years. On the East coast, mom is pretty meat-free but my stepdad was born considerably before the curret dietary and environmentl considerations.
An Indian “climate scientist” urges us to not eat meat? How quaint.
He’s obviously never tasted slow smoked brisket, or enjoyed a nice ribeye with a glass of cabernet sauvignon after his obviously stressful day at work.
Ben: And you’ve obviously never tasted it while standing on a slaughterhouse floor with the smell of manure and death in the air.
I’m going to Burger King twice today because of this article. Double Whopper… with cheese.
The day I give up the whopper is the day the earth is engulfed by nuclear war and the only living thing left is the flour beetle. In fact, I’m going to eat even more whoppers now, to make up for anyone who listens to this guy.
Using all aspects of meat production as it says is an inaccurate way to come up with the 18%. If you think about it, clearing land, creation and transportation of fertilizers, and burning fuels in farm vehicles are all going to go into farming wether it is to raise cattle or to grow soy beans. So the only real variable is the product. Yes cattle will produce more greenhouse emissions than corn or soy beans, but not anywhere near 18% on it’s own. I truly hope that people out there are smart enough to smell the BS, no pun intended, and not give up on meat for such a bogus reason.
well, i don’t think it should be too difficult for the world to eat less meat..! Cant u even do such a little bit, to help the planet, which has already been screwed up enough…!
And also going vegetarian is healthier and much more humane way of existence…
Which scientist has proved global warming is man-caused? Answer: Not a single one.
No Steve, he obviously hasn’t because that would be stupid, much like your comment. If the fact that things eat other things to live is too much for you to bear, maybe you shouldn’t be living.
So basically they’ve taken all basic aspects of
meat productionFarming, when arriving at the 18% figure: clearing land, creation and transportation of fertilizers, burning fuels in farm vehicles, and the emissions coming directly from cows and sheep. Are you kidding? The simple metabolic processes that sustain the lives of these creatures is being taken into account?!It starts with “Stop eating meat to prevent global warming” and eventually it becomes restrictions on how much we can drive, and then into keeping house pets and how the resources expended to sustain their existence is causing global warming, and well the simple fact that I’m alive is contributing to global warming. So I should live however they tell me to live because I should feel guilty for my own existence. Repent and obey!
Suck it!