IPCC’s Dr. Pachauri must be having a conniption fit about now, since he’s been an advocate of meat free global warming salvation.
From the American Chemical Society:
Eating less meat and dairy products won’t have major impact on global warming
SAN FRANCISCO, March 22, 2010 — Cutting back on consumption of meat and dairy products will not have a major impact in combating global warming — despite repeated claims that link diets rich in animal products to production of greenhouse gases. That’s the conclusion of a report presented here today at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.
Air quality expert Frank Mitloehner, Ph.D., who made the presentation, said that giving cows and pigs a bum rap is not only scientifically inaccurate, but also distracts society from embracing effective solutions to global climate change. He noted that the notion is becoming deeply rooted in efforts to curb global warming, citing campaigns for “meatless Mondays” and a European campaign, called “Less Meat = Less Heat,” launched late last year.
Reducing consumption of meat and dairy
products might not have a major impact in
combating global warming despite claims
that link diets rich in animal products to
production of greenhouse gases.
Credit: Wikimedia
“We certainly can reduce our greenhouse-gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk,” said Mitloehner, who is with the University of California-Davis. “Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries.”
The focus of confronting climate change, he said, should be on smarter farming, not less farming. “The developed world should focus on increasing efficient meat production in developing countries where growing populations need more nutritious food. In developing countries, we should adopt more efficient, Western-style farming practices to make more food with less greenhouse gas production,” Mitloehner said.
Developed countries should reduce use of oil and coal for electricity, heating and vehicle fuels. Transportation creates an estimated 26 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., whereas raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about 3 percent, he said.
Mitloehner says confusion over meat and milk’s role in climate change stems from a small section printed in the executive summary of a 2006 United Nations report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” It read: “The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). This is a higher share than transport.”
Mitloehner says there is no doubt that livestock are major producers of methane, one of the greenhouse gases. But he faults the methodology of “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” contending that numbers for the livestock sector were calculated differently from transportation. In the report, the livestock emissions included gases produced by growing animal feed; animals’ digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods. But the transportation analysis factored in only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving and not all other transport lifecycle related factors.
“This lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue,” he said.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The CO2 numbers from cattle is only high because of the methane content (high CO2 equivalent). But, after 7 years, half of the methane is converted to CO2. If you consider this (or say 20 years later), then the cattle contribution of actual CO2 is 30 times smaller. Nitwits.
Yes ACS is promeat because the agency is pro fertilizer and pesticides. The point is meat production as conventionally practiced has a huge footprint on land use, water use and is big consumer of chemical inputs. Any appreciable land base expansion for liquid biofuels or meat eating will destroy more forests. Its just a terrible idea to promote an appreciable expansion of the global meat industry.
Goodness. Thanks so much for relieving me of undue stress related to eating meat and dairy products (she said while eating a homemade bacon buttermilk biscuit stuffed with fried egg, bologna, and cheese, washed down with an ice cold glass of buttermilk).
In “Plows, plagues and petroleum” William F. Ruddiman makes a pretty good case for agriculturally generated methane as an important greenhouse gas.
Ruddiman is not an alarmist, and he doesn’t advocate doing anything about
the situation (he doesn’t characterize it as a problem), and I think he does
add a valuable perspective. According to Ruddiman, by far the largest source of agricultural methane is the “swamp gas” produced in the standing water associated with irrigation. I figure this never gets any press due to the fact
that politicians haven’t figured out a way to tax standing water.
On a separate note, I wonder if the ACS analysis takes into account the high degree to which fertilizer production is tied to petroleum refining. Most
ammonia fertilizer, for example, is made within a short piping distance of
an oil refinery.
The statement in the post here seems irrelevant and distracting. The issue is not “meat production as compared to transportation” because the two are different things, and one is used for the other. It’s not like you can give up eating to travel more, because travel uses less CO2.
The issue is, within food production, how does one type of food compare to others? Does one take less land, less fertilizer, and less total CO2 to produce than the other? Is meat better than corn, or corn better than wheat, or wheat better than orchards? I’m sure it’s a complex question, which requires an apples to apples (not apples to tires) comparison.
This article seems to simply distract people from the real issue by purposely misrepresenting the problem.
Normally I’d shy away from directing people to Pravda UK, aka The Guardian, but the irony of their front (online) page hosting a weepy appeal from Greenpeace for Asian companies to stop planting palm oil for biofuel purposes is too good to miss.
Stopping global warming through replacing fossil fuels is apparently wiping out the few remaining orang-utans through destruction of their habitat, a consequence regrettably unforeseen by the AGW crowd.
If global warmers succeed, you will surely become ROOTS-EATERS, and you won´t have to worry about climate anymore: You will have to worry about what to eat in the next 24 hours: That is the positive result of, already tested in third world countries, progressive social policies.
Funny how one can be right for the wrong reasons – since there is no such thing as global warming, then of course nothing that you can possibly do personally can have any effect on global warming – whether it’s eat meat or eat veggies or get on top of a billboard next to a freeway and dance naked, as a man in downtown Dallas did yesterday.
The veggies are desperate to think that Their Actions Matter in some cosmic sense. Grow up, except in the manner in which you treat other people, they don’t.
If I choose to eat green stuff, then what will the green-stuff-eaters eat?
but that is probably a myth too, just because someone hasn’t caught them in the act, does not prove that gorillas do not eat meat. Remember the chimps??
New finding on gorillas eating meat: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100305-first-proof-gorillas-eat-monkeys-mammals-feces-dna/
They’re just clearing out the veggie kooks for the Cap-N-Trade
push. Middle East problems and security will be the next
boogeyman. So predicts “ZOLTAR”…..Now give me more
coins or de planet will explode.
Perhaps we all should eat fish. After all, the oceans are where most of the global warming is stored and fish are the obvious culprits.
On the other hand should they be fingered, or is the whole theory impossible to justify……?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7499524/You-cant-predict-the-weather-or-climate-change.html
We DO NOT have to do anything about “greenhouse gases”. PERIOD! OR “climate change”. PERIOD! Except to KEEP WARM!
OT:
“The carbon tax will not be implemented in France on 1 July, as the government had assured the
Tuesday’s announcement by the president of the UMP group in the Assembly, Mr. Cope.
Asked if what Mr Fillon said that the fee should be at the European level to avoid “sealing the competitiveness” of French companies, meant that this mechanism could not be applied to the said date, he replied “You have well said”
“If there is no European agreement before 1 July, it will happen later,” he said at a press conference after a meeting of UMP deputies to the Assembly.
At that meeting, the Prime Minister said that “we must not adopt reforms, because the French do not ask us. “Focus on growth, employment, competitiveness, the fight against the deficit,” he said, adding he had “complete the reform of local and make the pension.
If the Secretary of State for Ecology, Chantal Jouanno, said she was “desperate for this decline,” the president of MEDEF, Laurence Parisot, said to be “relieved” by the abandonment of national this tax.
In an interview Figaro Magazine on the eve of the first round of regional President Nicolas Sarkozy had foreshadowed a change of schedule on the carbon tax whose first draft has been readjusted by the Constitutional Council: “We will not impose our industrial constraints if, in Meanwhile, we allow imports from countries that do not comply with environmental regulations to flood our markets, “said the head of state.
The conclusion of a European agreement on the introduction of an EU tax is deemed unrealistic by the diplomats.”
====
How about the ridiculous BC Carbon Tax in Canada?
Always suspect of those who love pets and eat only veggies. One of the most famous was the known author of the book “Mein Kampf”. It seems that the lack of some animal proteins change the behaviour in not very pleasant ways.
http://www.earthsave.org/environment/foodchoices.htm
One of the most dishonest sites I have ever visited.
He is a political scientist. I think of a 100,000 head feed lot. According to the liar, they consume 28.4 million gallons of oil if you trace back the calving in Texas, grazing in the Flint Hills and finishing in Western Kansas. A 100,000 head herd finish yield at 1,000 pounds and using his 5,000 gallons per pound of meat, we are seeing trillions of gallons supporting a single feed lot. They can add 3-4 zeros to their numbers and no one says anything.
Many of the comments here are missing important points.
First, D.r Mitloehner did NOT say that going veggie won’t impact global warming, as the WUWT title implies. He said it won’t have as big an impact as the IPCC claims, and that it’s not as big as automobiles. Mitloehner is a warmist, just like Pachauri, Mann, Jones, Gore, etc. The only difference is, his paycheck depends on the meat industry, so he’s trying to protect it, and his income, by putting the blame on other sources of global warming. Mitloehner should be condemned along with everyone else that has fallen for this hoax.
Second,as do all members of the animal kingdom, cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, and chickens put more carbon dioxide into the environment than they take out. It’s called “respiration”. True, the carbon dioxide they’re exhaling started out in the atmosphere, then was consumed by grass or grain crops, converted to sugars, starches, and other carbon compounds, which were consumed by the animals, then returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. But, if the animals didn’t eat those plants and their products, some percentage of them would have made it down into the soil where it would have been sequestered for some period of time rather than released to the atmosphere. Not that I care, because I don’t believe carbon dioxide causes significant warming. I just hate to see people saying wrong things.
Third, the carbon dioxide directly exhaled by animals isn’t the main concern anyway. The 2 main concerns are 1) forest land cleared for grazing, and 2) methane production by farm animals. Forest land, supposedly, sequesters CO2 (though, in unmanaged forests, like the Amazon Rain Forest) the net carbon sequestration is zero). And methane is 30 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. Again, neither of these are of great concern to me. But you guys just got it all wrong.
Fourth, most of the livestock that humans eat (at least in the US) are fed GRAINS, not grass. Mostly corn, in fact. They may spend a year or so after weaning on pasture, but after that, they go to a feedlot where they eat grains exclusively. Most humans in the (at least in the US) have never eaten grass-fed beef, and wouldn’t like it at all if they did. So forget about this “cattle convert inedible grass to edible meat” theory. The grains that most of them are eating are, in fact, edible by humans. True, it takes a certain amount of processing. But that corn that the cattle are eating would, for the most part, be feeding humans if the cattle weren’t eating it. And livestock (cattle in particular) are, in fact, quite inefficient (at least in on an pound-for-pound basis) at converting grains to meat.
Regards,
Trevor
Steven Chu – Secretary of Energy in today’s WSJ – is still very much concerned about carbon and climate change. His solution: generate interest in nuclear power by TAXING fossil fuels.
Of course he doesn’t mention this goal until the last paragraph – and he NEVER uses the word TAX. No, amid the whirl of words denoting good intentions and wonderful abundant clean energy is the line: ‘put a price on carbon’. Stunning.
They’re taking this country apart – brick by brick, regulation by regulation, tax by tax.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575092130239999278.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecond
Biofuels = less cropland for food = higher food prices = more poor hungry people
Less meat production = higher food prices = more poor hungry people
Cap and trade = higher prices for everything = more poor and hungry people
Is there a pattern here? Maybe its what they want?
For the solution to the CO2 problem (converting it to a non-problem and plant food) read The Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory () by Zagoni describing Ferenc Miskolczi’s recent and defining work on heat-trapping gases. It’s the water vapor, silly!
I have been a vegetarian for over forty years and consequently can assume an air of pious moral superiority when talking to the green brigade, but shall adopt an ‘it doesn’t really make any difference’ attitude when conversing with other sceptics. 🙂
Tonyb
Pachauri Gone Wild
I eat meat because I have canines and eating meat is what nature intended for them. Our closest cousines in the animal kingdom, chimps, are also omnivores. These guys want us to get closer to nature so why don’t they do what nature intended and eat meat?
One of the disadvantages of vegetarianism is that some vegetarians experience “brain fog,” memory loss, tiredness, moodiness due to blood sugar highs and lows, lack of motivation, and poor performance at work or during exercise. The other is that they produce more faeces [BS].
More disadvantages:
http://holistic-nutrition.suite101.com/article.cfm/disadvantages_of_going_veg
http://www.oldandsold.com/articles30/health-and-diet-65.shtml
wsbriggs (06:13:55) :
“All in all, most of the populous would have to go back to the farms and agrarian way of life – not bad if you’re trying to control a populous. Ask ol’ Joseph Stalin, he was good at it. The Ukraine has not too fond memories about that.”
Dont forget Pol Pot. He studied at Sorbonne.
I’ll bet he was good at Post Normal Science.
Every ounce of organ tissue consumes some energy. Eating meat allowed our guts to shrink. The extra energy no longer being used by gut tissue, became available for brain tissue. AThe rib cages of apes curve outward at the waist. Human rib cages curve inwards at the waist. That’s the attractive thin waist of humans. Our small guts are small because we eat meat.
The thing about being a vegetarian or a vegan is, it is a long term health issue. A few years of malnutrition is fine for anyone. But wind the clock forward 20 or 40 years, and you’re talking about the possible causes of depression, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, colitis, osteoporosis, and so on.
These are all serious long term conditions where the root causes are debatable. So it is about being open to the idea. It is about starting from scratch, as an individual, and asking basic questions, and experimenting with diet.
People who say they feel fine on a “healthy” rice and veg diet don’t know how they would feel if they’d been on a very low carb paleo diet. So there are many many unknowns. Even the whole premise of vegetarianism being ethical is questionable (See The Vegetarian Myth, written by a long term feminist vegan who eventually questioned her health and her assumptions).
Joachim (05:13:30) :
The operative word here being quite correct, is “MAY” & it is ALL relative! Which belongs to all those other definitive positive words such as might, could, & likely, etc:-))
Increases in CO2 MAY cause additional warming. Increases in CH4 “MAY” cause additional warming. Sea-levels “MAY” rise! Global Cooling “MAY” occur. Hymalayan Glacia melt “MAY” increase. Eating too much red meat “MAY” lead to intestinal disorders, ill health generally, obesity etc. Eating too many vegetables “MAY” cause as yet unknown health scares (there’s another avenue to frighten us with)! Writing too many comments on WUWT “MAY” cause RSI. If I met you in the flesh I “MAY” buy you a pint, then again I “MAY” not! When I see a study report conclusion that states emphatically that something definitely does do something or other, I will eat my hat, provided of course it is thoroughly washed & cleaned prior to consumption & I’ve read the inner label where it states “NOT SUITABLE FOR EATING”! What’s the betting that your quoted report states somewhere toward the end, “however, further research is needed to draw firm conclusions”! I came to the conclusion years ago that health scare stories are for the most part just that -scarey stories! I would suggest therefore that the main cause of ill health in developed western democracies, is we’re living longer because we’re healthier, but more likely to succumbe to diseases of old age, which we do & are! In days of yore if man or indeed woman reached the age of 35/40 he/she would be doing rather well & considered old! That’s why many of us as we age, will have the delights to look forward to of either going gaga or being razor sharp but crippled with failing bodies, I see it every time I visit my mother in her care home! Let’s here it for modern medicines & science. Oh & just for the fun of it, pop ovre to Number Watch & read up on the complete causes of cancer, you wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning once read!