From the Chalmers University of Technology
Greenhouse gas emissions from food production may threaten the UN climate target of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, according to research at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
On Monday 31 March the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents their report on the impacts of climate change.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the energy and transportation sectors currently account for the largest share of climate pollution. However, a study from Chalmers now shows that eliminating these emissions would not guarantee staying below the UN limit. Emissions from agriculture threaten to keep increasing as global meat and dairy consumption increases. If agricultural emissions are not addressed, nitrous oxide from fields and methane from livestock may double by 2070. This alone would make meeting the climate target essentially impossible.
“We have shown that reducing meat and dairy consumption is key to bringing agricultural climate pollution down to safe levels,” says Fredrik Hedenus, one of the study authors. “Broad dietary change can take a long time. We should already be thinking about how we can make our food more climate friendly.”
By 2070, there will be many more of us on this planet. Diets high in meat, milk, cheese, and other food associated with high emissions are expected to become more common. Because agricultural emissions are difficult and expensive to reduce via changes in production methods or technology, these growing numbers of people, eating more meat and dairy, entail increasing amounts of climate pollution from the food sector.
“These emissions can be reduced with efficiency gains in meat and dairy production, as well as with the aid of new technology,” says co-author Stefan Wirsenius. “But the potential reductions from these measures are fairly limited and will probably not suffice to keep us within the climate limit, if meat and dairy consumption continue to grow.”
Beef and lamb account for the largest agricultural emissions, relative to the energy they provide. By 2050, estimates indicate that beef and lamb will account for half of all agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, while only contributing 3 percent of human calorie intake. Cheese and other dairy products will account for about one quarter of total agricultural climate pollution.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Save a cow….eat a “Greentard”! 😉
“Cheese and other dairy products will account for about one quarter of total agricultural climate pollution”
They are going after the cheese!
How do they not realize they are insane?
“Climate pollution”?
Is that a new one for this year?
This sort of report is beyond bizarre! Where do they find these people? You might just as well say that the IPCC is institutionalising mass global famine and starvation and be done with it!
More lies and “nudges” from those fundamentally opposed to any human activity other than committing suicide.
Among others, the work of Allan Savory has shown how industrial “factory farms” can be replaced with the net gains in reforestation from properly raised livestock.
Climate cannabalism! That probably works for the greens…..fewer people, less pollution, plenty of protein. And I am sure they have some cute ideas on who gets eaten first.
So Fredrick are you leading by example?
Cut myself off somehow,
So Fredrick are you leading by example, no beef or dairy. Myself I just happen to be starting a couple of steaks.
The BS never stops – it just gets even more maniacal.
It reminds me of those nutters who finish their days roaming around city streets, screaming obscenities or obscure philosophical messages to all and sudry..
I guess even these crazy people start out talking in a softer, perhaps even a rational voice?
Now that would make an interesting clinical study.. Mann could be a good ‘crash test dummy’ for that clinical history.. i am calling it;
‘The Descent of Mann’. – In all honesty I couldn’t call it ‘A Definitely NOT Beautiful Mind’.
any takers?
I suppose the American bison didn’t emit greenhouse gasses before the “white men” came…
“By the time America’s earliest peoples had established villages about 20,000 years ago, the bison dominated the rolling grasslands and forested hillsides that stretched west from the Mississippi River west to the Rocky Mountains. Researchers estimate that prairie bison alone numbered between 30 million and 200 million”
from:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/american-buffalo-spirit-of-a-nation/introduction/2183/
They number about a half a million now…
That does it!! Going out for a nice thick Delmonico steak tonight, just dripping with blood!!
What will it take for people to realize how absurd all the CAGW claims/projections/models/prophecies are? CAGW has the potential to eclipse both the “Great Leap Forward” and the “Cultural Revolution” in China for harm to mankind.
And what about human flatulence? I don’t know about you, but I have more embarrassing situations eating vegetables than I do eating dairy and meat.
(Of course, eco-loons already already have an answer to that: less humans.)
If we’re ever forced to resort to cannibalism then I hope the retards who brought it about will have the courtesy to fill their jacuzzis with barbecue sauce.
Two words. Balder-dash.
Kindest Regards
Can you think of another species on the planet that despises it’s own success and frets about it?
The UN by IPCC proxy clearly does not like us living on their planet.
When they peel my cold dead fingers off of my burger.
Methane from livestock is a component of the natural carbon cycle. It has absolutely nothing to do with fossil carbon or “global warming”.
‘Global warming’ is nothing more than a universal excuse for leftist political objectives.
I know I can’t swallow climate baloney.
Remember, Tuesday is Soylent Green day!
It is worse than we thought. If the CO2 doesn’t get us, the methane and nitrous oxide will. Oh woe is me.
Is there an actual syndrome name to latch onto the environmentalist chicken littleism?
“But the potential reductions from these measures are fairly limited and will probably not suffice to keep us within the climate limit, if meat and dairy consumption continue to grow.”
In other words, they’re advocating for the have-nots to be forever deprived of meat and dairy? They want to keep some of the most efficient sources of nutrition beyond the reach of the undernourished? It also doesn’t sound like they took into account how much more “agricultural emissions” would have to rise with an increase in vegetarianism.
This study will show up again when Obama issues an executive order, enforced by the EPA, to place a climate “fee” (not a tax) on each head of livestock produced.