| 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.
I wonder why I have canine teeth?
To statePoet 1775,
The New Zealanders are advanced in the art of methane (CH4) sequestering by inaugurating a “bag it” program. I am not sure if they have advanced to the catalytic converter stage at this time.
To Bobby Lane,
Dr. Packauri has apologized for his unavoidable carbon foot-print. In order to meet his lecture commitments in spreading religion, er, “scientific” facts, he finds himself constantly flying to points world-wide. Such a sacrifice is necessary, you see, for the good of all.
First they want to shut down fossil fuels, they really don’t want nuclear power and now they want to keep us from eating beef?
Ok UN, Texas doesn’t want to play with you anymore. I think you lost Tennessee too.
You better be careful Mr P. when Al Gore hears about this beef thing, he just might become a sceptic.
You try to take a hamburger or a nice barbecue sandwich away from Al, you’ll pull back a bloody stump.
STOP EATING MEAT!! The debate is over.
There were never 60 million bison on the Plains. Human beings have been the keystone predator in the Americas for at least 13,500 years. Optimal foraging strategies led pre-Columbian residents to keep large ungulate populations at 10 percent of carrying capacity or less. Bison were not food-limited because they were predator-limited by people. See Kay, C. E., and R. T. Simmons, Editors. 2002. Wilderness and political ecology: Aboriginal influences and the original state of nature. University of Utah Press; Geist, V. 1996. Buffalo nation: History and legend of the North American Bison. Voyageur Press; Shaw, J. H. 1995. How many bison originally populated western
rangelands? Rangelands 17: 148-150; and many others.
Human beings also modified the environments of the Americas with anthropogenic fire. As much as 30 percent of the total landscape was incinerated every year for millennia. The annual volume of biomass pyrolysis byproducts injected into the atmosphere by human beings vastly exceeded modern emissions, including those of fossil fuel combustion. It does not take many people to fire a landscape, but in any case the human population of the Americas in 1491 was 43 to 65 million people or more. See Denevan, William. 1992. The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the American Association of Geographers v. 82 n. 3 (Sept. 1992), pp. 369-385.
History is not only a fascinating subject, but it has important lessons for moderns, one of which is that we are not the first humans to modify the environments of Planet Earth.
Pachauri is coming over here telling us what to eat. Mark Twain said, “Sacred cows make the best hamburger.”
Is MacDonald’s big in India now?
Just wondering,
Mike
Speaking about changing diets, how about banning irrigation and
watering lawns? John Christy pointed out that irrigation the
central valley has a significant effect on California’s climate.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/68739.pdf
Of course, if it was no longer irrigated, it would go back to desert and scrub brush, which would be unsuitable for anything except
raising cattle
Why does it seem that most of what the greens want us to stop doing to end climate change are the same things that other leftists groups have tried to get us to stop doing?
I am very sad to report I hold a degree from the same university as Pachauri. North Carolina State.
*sigh*
Anthony, I know and approve of the line in the virtual sand, but…. Can you please find a more flattering photo of Dr Pachauri? Preferably one where he isn’t looking straight at me….
I don’t usually eat beef but I’m happy to report that I had two steaks within the last week.
BTW I think Mr. Pachuri should be promoted to head of the IFS (International Fruitcake Society)
Just another facet of the anti-Western {anti-technology} lifestyle movement. In the West can be found abundant and cheap power and a diet that’s rich and varied. Instead of using that as an example to raise the health and wealth of the rest of the planet, this movement seems intent on destroying soaring Western-style success.
For those AGW proponents who are feeling guilty of such riches, don’t preach. Quit calling for sacrifices. Practice what you preach – live in sod/stone huts w/o electricity and only live on what you can forage from the surrounding environment; go vegetarian. Let’s see Pachauri, Gore, Hansen, WWF, Greenpeace, et al quit their climate controlled offices/homes and live the life they advocate. Come on folks – practice what you preach.
MattN I share your dismay.
Twice over.
Leon Brozyna says: “Practice what you preach – live in sod/stone huts w/o electricity and only live on what you can forage from the surrounding environment; go vegetarian.”
Can you tell me exactly who is preaching that we do this?
As for Pachauri, he said that people should consider eating less meat. That doesn’t necessarily mean becoming a vegetarian. Look, I like a good steak as much as the next carnivore (hell, I’ll even eat it raw…Go to an Ethiopian restaurant and check out “gored gored”…yum!)…but what I have been trying to do is have my meat in smaller serving sizes with more and larger servings of vegetables and fruits, especially locally-grown ones. It is probably better for me and better for the environment.
Matt N and Steve in SC. I have fond memories of jobs in RTP/Durham–sigh.
Dr Pachauri said: “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.”
Having sais that, what happens if he comes back as a cow, or a buffalo, or as an elephant?
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
“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”
Claiming a need to fly in order to be able to spread the word about global warming is akin to one having to eat meat in order to stay alive to tell us not to eat meat.
@Mike Dubrasich
For more evidence on how the Native Americans modified the continent for their benefit see:
This week in Science Magazine: The Case of the Vanishing Oaks: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/905/1
My two sentence take: “Lack of fire in Eastern forests is causing oaks to decline. Native Americans also set the eastern forest ablaze.”
As the leaves drop from the trees this fall, note, for example, how the leaves of oak trees curl up as they dry out. This is especially prominent in the oak savanna natives (ungulates = elk, not bison) such as Bur Oak. Compare with the leaves of bottomland dwellers such as silver maple and basswood.
Or for evidence on how native peoples modified the Amazon in South America see from last week’s issue of Science: Heckenberger et al (2008) Science 321. p. 1214
Apparently there was an agricultural civilization in this part of the Amazon in pre-Columbian times. I think someone else posted a few days ago about the human impacted terra preta soil developed by these civilizations.
Ric,
It wasn’t easy… ok it was I googled it. I found a picture of Raj Pachauri where he is smiling and not looking at the camera. It is almost bearable if you forget what he stands for.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20051002/edit.htm
You’ll have to scroll down a little, or do a find.
It seems that methane comes from wetlands more than anything else. So rice is the real culprit, not cattle. Methane lasts for 8 to 12 years in the atmosphere and ultimately degrades to CO2 and H2O. See the power point thingy at http://www.geo.uu.nl/Research/Geochemistry/jack/Methane.ppt for some interesting info on global methane.
If this guy was an Evangelist preaching end of days. He’d be criticized and rejected in an official capacity. Or if he was a Catholic, Muslim or Jew using his religion to influence Politics, he would be likewise rejected…..
However this Hindu guy is somehow different. I find it strange that a Religious zealot has been allowed to instill his religious policies into the Political framework of the IPCC. He practices vegetarianism because of his religion. His ideas of the environment come about because of his religion…..
There is a separation of religion and politics… that needs to include Buddhists and Hindus etc.
He is a handsome fellow.
I totally agree with him about meat, but tying it to global warming destroys the credibility of the argument. The massive waste of water and crops in the beef industry is not disputed.
Make an intelligent argument professor, and perhaps someone will listen.
Unless I’m missing something, this business about blaming livestock for greenhouse gas emissions is nonsense. It’s true that livestock do emit CO2 and/or methane (CH4) – but that’s only part of the story. From where does the carbon come that comprises that CO2 or CH4? From the food that the livestock eat. That is, plants, which extract CO2 from the atmosphere. So animals don’t generate carbon products – they simply recycle them. In short, livestock are already carbon neutral. In fact, while an animal is growing, it is sequestering carbon in its body. Likewise, so are humans (as far as our eating, burping and farting goes) – we eat either carbon neutral animals, or plants.
In fact if the vegetarians claim livestock are bad with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, then becoming vegetarian makes themselves no better than those animals, because livestock are vegetarians, too! Or, in other words, vegetarians are animals!
Here is another one from the BBC today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7603257.stm
Sir David King wants to stop funding science and put the money into climate change dogma.
Also he mentions what its really all about,
“He says population growth and poverty in Africa also demand attention”
tackeling poverty we are all for but population control!!!!!!!
I think people who hate people must not be too happy with themselves.