| 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.
Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of British Wind Energy Association countered:“We don’t have to pay for wind power it just comes to us naturally and is totally sustainable. ”
In engineering there is the dictum, that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Wind energy is diffuse, thus requiring lots of land area to be devoted to its harnessing. In a small island such as Britain, land is money. If that was all, it might still be worth considering, but its not. The wind is not a stable source of power. Its extreme variability leads to a lot of problems, such as load factor, frequency, and the resulting connection problems. Further, its unreliability requires, that a reliable backup energy source is built, thus negating whatever little that wind energy has going for it. All these problems, lead to a running cost. They cannot be “fixed”, as they are fundamental to the problem of harnessing wind as a stable source of energy.
But I suppose Maria McCaffery, is a fully qualified electrical engineer – how else could she occupy the exalted position she does.
Wind farms though are efficient producers of profit for the operators, as they are heavily subsidised.
There always been Revolution over food in past history. I see one more coming if they try dictate what we can eat.
BACON!
Isn’t there a distinct flaw in his logic? If cows are causing global warming then shouldn’t his battle cry be: “Stop global warming -Eat a cow!”
[…] Pachauri’s at it again – shun meat, he says (but what about the buffalo?) Shun meat, says UN climate chief […]
This is crazy, what kind of a proposal is this. Here’s a proposal with teeth:
Recent satellite data showing rapidly declining temperatures in the tropical troposphere (that part of the atmosphere most affected by CO2) are leading some misinformed scientists to question the Truth about global warming. Weak and undisciplined minds are now openly questioning the computer models that show that man is responsible for climate change. Wild and fantastic theories, like those suggesting that cyclical variations in sun spot activity are a major cause of climate variability, are sweeping across the internet, promoted by unauthorized scientist. If this cooling trend continues, it could undermine the political will necessary to save the planet from global warming. Therefore, urgent action is required while there is still time.
I propose that we enact five simple, clear thinking steps to ensure that those of us who put our planet first gain the tools needed to combat climate change.
First, since man is responsible for global warming it is necessary to careful regulate our population. Therefore, a strict prohibition, limiting families to no more than one child, must be enacted.
Second, since transportation is a chief producer of greenhouse gases, restrictions on travel must be implemented. Common people wishing to travel beyond the boundaries of their assigned home towns must apply for and receive travel permits. Similarly, passports shall be surrendered to the authorities. International travel will be approved on a case by case basis and only for those approved scientist, government officials and thought leaders (like me) attending climate change symposia, conducting field research or otherwise engaging in the business of saving the planet.
Third, strict curbs on private property must be enacted. In particular, the government shall confiscate all private homes (a major contributor the green house gases) and redistribute housing to ensure proper habitation density based on need. Generous housing limits of 250 square feet per person will be applied. Large existing homes will be reassigned for occupation by multiple families. Exceptions shall be granted for government officials, approved scientist or thought leaders, who require more space to host after-hours meetings on urgent climate change topics. All private automobiles will be outlawed (except for those needed by government officials, approved scientists and though leaders) to ensure that the common people use more efficient public transportation.
Additionally, all private enterprise must be federalized. Climate Economists observe that private corporations produce “externalities”, i.e., climate impacts that, while difficult to measure or observe, are known to exist by approved climatologist. Corporate taxes are insufficient to pay for environmental remediation of such externalities. Only our government can properly manage the complexities of today’s businesses and their impacts on the environment. Officers and executives of the formerly private companies will be jailed and subjected to Nierenberg-style tribunals for crimes against the planet.
Forth, strict regulation on information must be enforced. Internet access will be limited to only government officials, approved scientists and thought leaders. This is necessary to ensure that the common people, who do not possess the intellect needed to interpret information in today’s complex world, are not subjected to Falsehoods that could lead them to non-aligned conclusions.
Fifth, the two party political system must be outlawed. This will ensure that unauthorized thinking can no longer interfere with the important work of saving the planet.
Climate scientists now know, with absolute certainty, how the climate works. Unlike other physical systems, our climate is driven entirely by a causality agent of barely detectable intensity (in this case, anthropogenic CO2) and for which the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. Under such circumstances, it is foolish to insist on “evidence” that anthropogenic CO2 is causing climate change, as some lesser scientists are now demanding. Such evidence, naturally, lies well below the current level of measurability. And if we wait until its impact is measurable, it will be too late. Instead, climate scientists properly rely on computer models which are known by the elite climate scientist to be more accurate than observed reality. This is why the satellite data must be rejected – it does not match the computer models and therefore, is wrong. Only those possessing sophisticated knowledge of climate science can understand this.
The ideas that I outline are not new. Nor are they my own – enlightened environmentalists have been discussing these concepts for many years. We in the environmental community have been making incremental progress in enacting this agenda. But, given the magnitude of the problem and the erosion of the political will, it is necessary to accelerate the implementation of this plan. Please join me in enacting this urgent plan before it is too late.
Jonathan Swift, is that you?
You first.
My proposal, rid the planet of environmentalists.
I’d write more about this IPCC clown but I’m all fat and lazy from the brauts I just ate and am going to take a nap.
This is a windfall for the cork industry! Usually relegated to topping bottles of wine, they now have the unenviable job of plugging up the tailpipes of millions of these dangerous methane-emitting creatures. Obviously this is a tough task that will take some ingenuity as these creatures are much trickier than your average glass bottle. They have a double whammy of also attempting to cork the voluminous amounts of CO2 these creatures emit too.
No, not cows! I speak of trans-national beauracrats (aka tranzis) of course. We could really save the planet by stopping up both ends of those people!
Ed Scott
[insert grave nod here} Ahh, I see. Thank you.
Well, he did also say it would take him 6 lifetimes to reduce his carbon footprint to what it should be. An interesting thought that. I wonder if he will come back as some kind of plant. I can’t see him coming back as another tranzi beauracrat and having any hope whatsoever of reducing his CO2 footprint. But I wish him luck. Hopefully he’ll get started on his next life soon so we can all see if it works.
I don’t believe in reincarnation myself, so I guess I am stuck with the bad karma of having an oversized footprint. *sigh* Oh well.
[…] at a speech in London on Monday evening. Pachuri UN figures suggest that meat production puts morehttp://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/pachauris-at-it-again-shun-meat-he-says-but-what-abo…Plans For Modified C-17 May Keep Production In Long Beach gazettes.comAs currently scheduled, the […]
Is MacDonald’s big in India now?
Yes, but it’s big hit is muttonburgers. (Yech!)
OTOH, I avoid fast food in general and McD. in particular. (But that’s my choice.)
Sy Dogood: About your point 4. May I suggest that Internet access be free for all–we must get the word out. But POSTING PRIVILEGES should be limited as you suggest . . .
Also point 5: Might I suggest the Karl Radek solution: “Of course I support the multiparty system. One party in power, the other parties in jail.”
Evanjones, excellent suggestions. As you correctly point out, we don’t want to restrict people from reading, we just want to make sure that what they read comes from proper authority. I will accept your friendly amendment.
I have a problem with Dr. Pachauri being identified as a “Climate Scientist” – he is an economist. Perhaps someone has pointed it out here but Pachauri’s suggestion we stop eating beef to reduce cattle numbers strikes me as odd since India has an enormous cattle herd that is not there fore food.
Something is not right here.
OK, I’ll stop eating beef. I think, though, I’ll have to take up eating IPCC members to reduce the amount of global warming caused by their endless jibber-jabber.
Eating veggies shrinks the brain
The Times of India may have discovered the source of the problem.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/Eating_veggies_shrinks_the_brain/articleshow/3480629.cms
Regarding the buffalo, there were millions of buffalo, but each year there are billions of animals slaughtered for food. We artificially inseminate them and raise them using intense factory farming methods. Even range-fed beef is artificially inseminated so that we get large herds at relatively lower cost. I know, my parents run a large grass-fed beef operations. So the magnitude today is far greater.
Also with regards to the methane emitted by humans vs ruminants like cattle, there was a show on BBC called “Ethical Man Goes Vegan” where the reporter went vegan for a month. As part of the show, he interviewed an expert on the matter who was studying how to bring down methane in cattle. The man assured him cattle give off about 500 ml of methane each day, whereas the average human gives off about 0.5.
We also have to consider water. Across the globe scientists are predicting massive droughts. Here in the west, they are predicting lake mead and lake powell are liklye to be dry by 2021 and that the Colorado River which feeds them will not have enough water to meet its contractual obligations by 2012. This could tip off a resource war like we see in third world countries. On my parents ranch, my brother has already been chased by a man (a nieghbor) weilding a pitch fork when my brother found him syphoning water off the hay meadows. And my brother tells me that it takes up to 12 times their water rights to grow the hay for their “sustainably grown, grass fed cattle.” And they have — relatively speaking — excellent water rights.
“Saving Water from Field to Fork” tells us that 70 percent of water use is agriculture and vegetarian diets are far more efficient. Univ of Calif at Davis report called Water Inputs to California Agriculture made to the Water Education Board found that one serving of beef uses 1200 gallons of water to grow, one serving of chicken used 330, and one complete, nutritionally balanced vegan meal of grains, beans and two vegetables used only 98 gallons of water.
And if that is not enough to convince you you need to start cutting back on the meat, consider that according to the UN FAO, of the 2 billion tons of grains being grown during the 2008 season, 1 billion will be fed directly to humans, 100 million (5%) will be used for biofuel, and 760 million tons will be fed to animals. Since it takes around pounds of grains (more or less depending upon climate) to grow one pound of beef, 5 pounds for one pound of pork/ham and 2 to grown one pound of chicken, it is highly inefficient to feed the food to animals when there are people starving in the world.
30 years ago we thought if we wanted to smoke, it was our right, our choice. Today we realize that one individual’s right to smoke ends and another individuals right to health and right to avoid second hand smoke.
I believe we are at the place where our right to eat meat needs to end — where it puts competitive prices on grains so that the poor cannot afford to compete for grain with the rich who feed the grain to their animals, and where it takes away from society’s ability to have clean water and where it threatens to destroy our ability to live on the planet. That time is now.
“one serving of beef uses 1200 gallons of water to grow”
Over how many years? Where does this water come from and where does it end up? Is any of this water “lost” in the process?
It is interesting to see how many people don’t get (or don’t want to get) the whole point of it.
Cows, like other livestock consume tons of grain and water. They are related to destruction of forests, water pollution and loss in biodiversity. That’s what makes it unstustainable in a future (40years from now) where population will be 9.1billion, and consumption of meat will double (China and India…).