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.
- » See also: MSNBC to Air 2 Hour Special on Animal Conservation: “100 Heartbeats”
- » Get Planetsave by RSS or sign up by email.
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
Oh noes, the only thing many Americans consider to be food is actually bad for the environment!
Think about it- cattle have to eat a ton of food to get as large as they do, which is an inefficient way of feeding people given that the grain fed to cows can be fed directly to people. Those cattle have to have a place to eat, too, which means land clearance- flash burning or cross cutting massive swatches of trees and grass land, which increases our atmospheric CO2 load due to burning and the elimination of trees (which breathe CO2 and exhale oxygen) so you can have a bunch of animals stand around all day and shit on it. Due to their intensive dietary needs, cow production also demands an incredible amount of water resources.
Underlying the whole operation is fossil fuels, since you have to ship the tools and materials needed to clear out the new grazing land to the site, then ship in a bunch of cows, and constantly ship in huge amounts of food for the cows to eat. Using that land to farm plant proteins, such as soy, is obviously more efficient in terms of resources needed to produce a yield, since you don’t have to feed grain to soy plants- you just need to give them water, sunlight, and fertilizer. Therefore, all of that grain that you were previously feeding cows now goes to people, and all of the land the cows occupied is now being used to grow soy. This feeds MORE PEOPLE MORE EFFECTIVELY than the massive resource-drain cattle farming represents.
But of course Americans ridicule anyone who questions their undying devotion to beef, simply because we’re uncomfortable with the idea of sacrificing creature comforts in the name of sustainability. Which means the meatheads inevitably turn these conversations to HURF DURF I’LL EAT MORE MEAT JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT, in which case fine, I’ll happily enjoy a longer, healthier life than you and will probably come out ahead since I’ll be alive and still eating vegetables long after you’ve died of a coronary.
I’m not saying you should completely give up beef and red meat, and neither is the gentleman who is the subject of the article. We’re simply saying that you should cut back on meat- for example, by eliminating meat entirely one day of the week. Is that going to kill you? I can attest that it won’t, since I haven’t eaten meat in over 6 years. So why don’t you give it a try? You think meat is the only thing delicious enough to be worth eating simply because you refuse to consider eating anything else as the staple of your diet.
Ahhh, that cow is soooo cute! I want one!
Jiff
http://www.anonweb.net.tc
[...] If you eat meat, itseems, you’re not half as eco-responsible as you could be. [...]
I have suspended myself and my spouse in stasis inside a rental unit near where our old, carbon wasting, house used to reside. We have internet access (which is powered by solar panels on the roof) and survive off of captured rain water. We wanted to minimize our carbon footprint, so we stopped driving, eating meat, verbally socializing, having children, and living in a space much larger than we needed. We occasionally view images of meat, and often vacation at various locations around Google Earth (side note: the images from that new satellite is really going enhance our marriage.) We’re heading over to the Greenpeace website later today if anyone wants to join us.
It’s worth noting that the more traditional and environmentally friendly method of farming, which organic farming was intended to revitalize, tends to require animals because animal waste is the main source of traditional fertilizer. The act of eliminating meat eating entirely would raise sustainability issues of its own.
As a first step we might be better off figuring out how to use animal waste as fertilizer, rather than trying to eliminate it. Waste filling the Gulf of Mexico and other dead zones is troubling, and we could do a lot more good by making sure it’s used in agriculture in place of industrial fertilizer.
I believe the numbers go something like this:
Cattle has a 54 to 1 energy ratio.
Pigs has a 17 to 1 energy ratio.
Lamb has a 50 to 1 energy ratio.
Chicken has a 4 to 1 energy ratio.
On average, animal protein production in the U.S. requires 28 kcal for every 1 kcal of protein produced for human consumption
Now I am not trying to tell you to be a vegetarian… I am just saying instead of having a burger for lunch everyday, maybe once in awhile try the chicken sandwich.
Nice to see the overreactionary wing of the US still in full force. “What? Someone said that eating meat is bad? WELL SCREW YOU BUDDY! BECAUSE I’M FROM THE FREAKIN’ US-OF-A AND WE EAT MEAT! I DON’T CARE IF IT MAKES MY HEAD EXPLODE ON A REGULAR BASIS, IT’S MY RIGHT AND I’LL DO IT!”.
It was just an advisory from a guy who knows what he’s talking about, so frickin’ relax.
The reality here is that the truth lies within the middle — of course eating less meat has its dietary benefits. However, I somehow don’t really buy the statement that meat production solely accounts for such a large proportion of emissions.
In reality, a decreased demand in meat production would result in farmers collectively replacing lost business with other crops — which will create more emissions anyways.
Let’s focus on emission reduction by making smart decisions when we purchase our vehicles, driving less in general, and convincing our government to offer incentives to companies that are advocates of alternate energy sources.
It seems to me that if we just started eating human meat it would actually reduce the carbon footprint.
First we pull the GPS data and anyone who has an SUV that has not been off a road in a year gets eaten.
If you want to “feel safe” try learning how to drive.
Next we eat the vegans because grain fed just tastes better and they are kind of annoying and preachy.
We could eat the politicians and improve the world but they are usually so full of crap they’d be a bitch to clean.
Uh, yeah. All you Climate Change skeptics that are in Denial, should read this article.
http://www.twilightearth.com/2008/09/global-warming-huh-what/