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: An Ocean of Effort
- » 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
No, Tyler, that fact is correct because the land that is being cleared to grow food for cows could be used to grow food for people. The excess land is taken up by the cows themselves.
@Adam: Thanks for sharing. I disagree, though, that the kind of approach represented in this article will do anything to change any minds. If someone snidely attacked your beliefs and values, would you be inclined to consider their point of view? I wouldn’t…
Domesticated animals in the developed world are better fed than lots of people in the third world. Doomed animals are competing (and winning) against a significant proportion of humanity.
Meat increases the amount of area required for agriculture - to feed the animals. (If you were to feed people on a purely vegetarian diet instead of meat, you would need much, much less area to grow the crops). This added inefficiency is probably responsible for at least 10% of our CO2 emissions - if not 18% - I don’t know because I haven’t read the report.
Add to this the ethical bankruptcy of slaughterhouses.
Calling meat a bad idea is a no-brainer. And alas, a non-starter. Here’s why.
I don’t blame the multitudes who consume whoppers (and the like). Humans are not hard wired to be altruistic. Evolution has hard-wired them to be selfish. To expect them to forgo their whoppers is expecting them to go against their fundamental human nature. That’s never going to work when one talks of humans as a whole.
The sad issue with global warming is that one does not have simple tangible proof that it is happening. One can explain away any climatic oddity as a “fluctuation” - an inherent (tangible) characteristic of climatic systems.
Of course, the proof is simple and intuitive to anyone with a scientific inclination. And 99% of the people don’t have it. Expecting people to believe in global warming is like expecting everyone to be familiar with the proof of E=mc^2. That’s not going to happen.
Hey — I disagree with that last comment. It seems from most places I’ve been in my life, (India, Japan, America) that many or most humans are hard wired to be altruistic, and in fact, that’s a necessary fact of their lives. You can even depend on it.
On the other hand, Americans are hard-wired to become selfish (and fat!! hee hee). Why is that? Is there too much fluoride brain damage in the water? Is selfishness left over from the 1930’s? Was it actually evolution from the 1930’s?
Meow!!!
Mankind did not claw his way up to the top of the food chain just to go back to eating grass and leaves.
Why eat like a rabbit when you can eat the rabbit?
(I’m french sorry for the mistakes)
Another fact that have not been mentioned is that to produce a kilogram of meat requires 13 000 liters of water while a kilogram of wheat or other cereals require around 100 liters to produce.
Plus, I don’t have the exact numbers but for every kg of meat to be produced, it takes MANY kg of cereals to raise a single animal.
Productivity per hectare for several types of food:
cherry: 1000kg per hectare
apple: 4000kg per hectare
carot: 6000kg per hectare
beef meat: 50kg per hectare
Wow, so many of you are just willing to let the world go to hell without a second thought. At least Chris Jones here is just plain daft. He has an excuse, albeit an unfortunate one. Some others of you acknowledge that there is likely (or at least possibly) a serious problem, but are unwilling to care because it might inconvenience you. How ridiculous humanity has become. Too caught up in your own little personal world to give a damn about the real one.
Meg,
Thanks for this thoughtful article.
A lot of us eat meat for health reasons - a high protein, low carb diet is important to stay healthy, and avoid obesity and diabetes. Even vegetarians can do it. But shouldn’t there also be some focus on helping the newly affluent developing countries spend their “calories” more wisely? That would mean still eat meat, but eat less rice, since protein is needed for health, and wet rice is a huge methane source.
I’ve put a little mini blog up on this question and I’ll try to keep it updated as this issue gets talked through. Please feel free to leave a comment!
http://lowcarbclimatechange.blogspot.com/
Brian
7 lbs of corn to get 1 lb of beef.
65 lbs of beef a year (average) = 455 lbs of corn.
455 lbs of corn that is genetically modified
455 lbs of corn that is chemically treated
chemicals leach into rivers, killing water echo system
corn makes cows sick
cows are given antibiotics to keep them alive.
antibiotic laced beef leads to early puberty
Farmers grow more corn because people want more beef
Worldwide prices of corn goes up.
More farmers grow corn instead of other food
Other countries grow our food
Transportation to ship food from other countries results in pollution and global warming.
Enjoy you’re big mac.
Adam
http://WWW.Twilightearth.com
I posted on this subject previously, referencing the UN report all this is based on: http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/07/06/the-hidden-giant-1-food-vegetarianism/#more-2653