| By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website |
Livestock production has a bigger climate impact than transport, the UN believes
People should consider eating less meat as a way of combating global warming, says the UN’s top climate scientist.
Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will make the call at a speech in London on Monday evening.

Pachuri
UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.
But a spokeswoman for the UK’s National Farmers’ Union (NFU) said methane emissions from farms were declining.
Dr Pachauri has just been re-appointed for a second six-year term as chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC, the body that collates and evaluates climate data for the world’s governments.
“The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions,” he told BBC News.
“So I want to highlight the fact that among options for mitigating climate change, changing diets is something one should consider.”
More of the BBC article plus my response follows….
Climate of persuasion
The FAO figure of 18% includes greenhouse gases released in every part of the meat production cycle – clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep.
The contributions of the three main greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – are roughly equivalent, the FAO calculates.
Transport, by contrast, accounts for just 13% of humankind’s greenhouse gas footprint, according to the IPCC.
Dr Pachauri will be speaking at a meeting organised by Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), whose main reason for suggesting people lower their consumption of meat is to reduce the number of animals in factory farms.
CIWF’s ambassador Joyce D’Silva said that thinking about climate change could spur people to change their habits.
“The climate change angle could be quite persuasive,” she said.
“Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realise that changing what’s on their plate could have an even bigger effect.”
I’ve become a vegetarian. I try to minimize the use of cars. Where I’ve failed is my impact with regard to air travel. I tell people I was born a Hindu who believes in reincarnation. It will take me the next six lives to neutralize my carbon footprint. There’s no way I can do it in one lifetime.
Many of you may recall this blog entry from Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s Floor Speech on Global Warming. He touches on the UN claim of livestock and emissions:
A 2006 report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” to the United Nations mentions livestock emissions and grazing, and it places the blame for global warming squarely on the hind parts of cows. Livestock, the report claims, accounts for 18 percent of the gases that supposedly cause the global warming of our climate. Cows are greenhouse-emitting machines. Fuel for fertilizer and meat production and transportation, as well as clearing the fields for grazing, produce 9 percent of the global CO2 emissions, according to the report. And also, cows produce ammonia, causing acid rain, of course.
Now, if that’s not bad enough, all of these numbers are projected in this report to double by the year 2050. Well, not only are we then going to have to cut personal transportation, which will keep us at home, but when we stay at home, we can’t even have a bbq. And heck, they won’t even let us have a hamburger.
One of the most interesting paragraph’s refutes Pachuri’s claims quite well I think:
I would like to point out that before the introduction of cattle, millions upon millions of buffalo dominated the Great Plains of America. They were so thick you could not see where the herd started and where it ended. I can only assume that the anti-meat, manmade global warming crowd must believe that buffalo farts have more socially redeeming value than the same flatulence emitted by cattle. Yes, this is absurd, but the deeper one looks into this global warming juggernaut, the weirder this movement becomes and the more denial is evident.
What next from Pachuri? Stop bathing? Perhaps we should all mail him a bag of this:

Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Err, this is a bit unsavory, but has anybody calculated the amount of methane expelled by a human on a diet of beans and other “healthy” legumes? And lets not forget there are six billion of us soon to double.Off hand I do not think there will any “greenhouse” gas savings in the substitution.
REPLY: Ok let me establish some ground rules for comments here:
1- No video clips from the movie “Blazing Saddles”
2- No video/audio clips from Howard Stern and his “super hero”
3- No similiar gaseous humor – stick to the meat, err, beef of the issue.
– Anthony
Ahhhh…
Dr. Pachauri wants to impose his religious views upon us.
No thanks.
Great. Now the Hare Krishnas are jumping on the bandwagon. Anyone else?
I too have scratched my head when I heard the cattle fart argument coming from the AGW pulpit.
I guess I have to assume that it was the herds of buffalo, wildebeests, and mastodons that ended the last ice age 10,000 years ago.
Yeah, it seems that not only can global warming cause anything, it can be caused by anything. Thus it can be used as the blunt instrument that forwards any cause you can name or desire.
Yet another attempt to control how we live for little reasoning.
Every thing we do is bad
We stop eating meat, and what next—- remember you can never satisfy a greenie they just move the doom and gloom onto the next thing
Tony says no gaseous humor.
I had a poem , oh woe.
But I guess it wouldn’t hurt too much
to mention some Beano
The production of bio-fuels has already caused meat and foodstuffs, to increase in cost. So in a way Pachauri and U.N. and IPCC has fulfilled one of their “planetary emergency” goals. The poor and the middle classes have had to cut back on buying
meat, and for the poorest cut down on eating period I.E. strarve.
I really can’t give this guy a pass anymore he is insane and immoral.
Interesting. Aren’t cows sacred to Hindus anyway? Is he saying let holy cows die out?
This has been on the news in the UK. Rajendra Pachauri is refered to as Professor Rajendra Pachauri. It doesn’t specify that he has a PhD in Industrial Engineering and a PhD in Economics, might as well be a professor of English and History. It seems just about anyone can pass themselves of as an expert in climate science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri
Growing up (as far as I did) on farms I am thoroughly familiar with bovine excreta, having smelt it, trodden in it and indeed, fallen in it. In all my 60-odd years, however, I have never encountered so much bull**** in one dose before. For a start, why has nobody challenged that 18% figure? Are they all terminally innumerate?
According to New Scientist comic – er, sorry, “magazine”, truest of True Believers (despite the fact that they transport tons of dead trees around every week while preaching that we are all doomed unless we take drastic action now), the natural output flux of CO2 is about 430Gt per year. This neatly balances the 430Gt that is naturally absorbed. (You might wish to ponder how those figures were obtained and to what accuracies, given the difficulty of working out how much even one acre of rain forest, desert or ocean emits or absorbs. One order of magnitude? At best?) By contrast, Homo sap. emits 26Gt, though this figure might be more precise since governments count and tax fossil fuels.
That implies that man’s total GHG output is at most 6% that of the total flux. How then in the name of all that’s holy can man’s meat-raising output amount to 18% of the total?
D-, and see me after class!
Dishman:
Is Dr. Pachauri a Hindu? If so, much is explained
Anyone know Pachauri’s address? Let’s all send him bags of buffalo chips.
Whether the protozoa is in a ruminates gut or in the soil, the cellulose will be digested and unsavory gasses will be emitted. I would hate to imagine how the UN would fix that.
We see now where this is going…they want to regulate every detail of our lives.
A pedantic biological point.
Cattle are ruminants, with four stomachs. Plant matter is fermented in the rumen by bacteria which produce methane which is belched out. Horses, rabbits, etc. keep their fermenting bacteria in the hind gut. You can work out the consequences, and allso mull over why horses are placed in front of carts, carriages and waggons!
Anyone with access to BBC TV. Tonight 20:00hrs GMT
“Earth: The Climate Wars (1/3)”
“Dr Iain Stewart traces the history of climate change from its very beginning and examines just how the scientific community managed to get it so very wrong back in the Seventies.”
“If scientists were so wrong, how can we be sure they got it right now?”
The question is did the programme makers make their conclusions before they made the series?
Can someone tell me how many Buffalo there were in North America (can you imagine the environmental devastation during their annual migration?!) before Man arrived? I’m just curious to know how it compares.
This is pretty silly. It’s patent absurdity to suggest that we need to change our diets in order to fight global warming. I think this is one of a couple strong examples which support you skeptics’ argument that some people have hijacked AGW for other irrelevant political agendas.
Don’t worry, though; the up-and-coming generation of climate scientists is a bit more grounded in reality than this guy. It’s disappointing that someone with such a ridiculous agenda will continue to lead the IPCC.
“Sacred cows make the best hamburger.”, Mark Twain
By the way, for those not familiar with how Dr. Pachauri ended up as head of the IPCC, this happened because the Bush Administration, at the behest of Exxon-Mobil, refused to support the re-appointment of American atmospheric scientist Robert Watson to head the IPCC and instead supported Pachauri (see http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/020403.asp and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_(scientist) and http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2002/2002-04-03-07.asp
It is not clear if the Bush Administration backed Pachauri because they thought his views would be more sympathetic to theirs or because they thought it would be easier to marginalize his views given his educational background and being from India rather than an American.
It’s useful to remember that Pachauri, when speaking of global warming, has publicly wondered whether ‘someone has got their sums wrong’. As an engineer, he understands the consequences of ‘getting the sums wrong’. I have hopes that eventually he will lead the IPCC out of the dead end they are stuck in. I may be hopelessly optimistic, too.
======================================
Doug’s point (re Jerry’s pedantry) deserves restatement. It ain’t the cows; it’s the microbes. Even if cows were extirpated (extinctified), we would still have microbes digesting the grass.
Need proof? If not for microbial digestion of vegetation your lawn would be 12 feet deep in thatch and you wouldn’t be able to get into (or out of) your house.
I may be a Flat Earther (according to Raj), but I’m not a complete fool.
By the way, Richard Black has accumulated quite a reputation with me. When ever I see that he has written something, I can almost guarantee without reading it that it is propaganda.
=========================================
No more wonderful days on the farm. Cool mornings, warm cow-pies to mush between the toes.
Those who have fallen for the AGW message should realize that the life style “change” demanded of them does not end with driving small cars and paying carbon tax.
Does this mean I can keep my comfortable sedan if I give up meat?