A timed for IPCC report claim: Meeting climate targets may require reducing meat and dairy consumption

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.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

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?

Jim of Sydney Australia

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!

cave horse

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”
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.

a jones

Two words. Balder-dash.
Kindest Regards

David L.

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.

Walter Sobchak

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.

R. Shearer

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.

Tom in Indy

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.


Interesting article from the Gruaniad of all places.

Lovelock sees environmentalism today as a form of what he calls “urban politics”. “It’s become a religion,” he says, “and religions don’t worry too much about facts.” He is an enthusiast for nuclear power, which makes him unpopular with many greens. “I’m a scientist and an inventor, and it is absurd to reject nuclear energy,” he says. “It all comes from the religious side. They feel guilty about dropping atom bombs on people. Here was this extraordinary gift given to humans – a safe, cheap source of power – and it gets horribly abused right at the start. We’re still playing out the guilt feelings about it. But it’s sad because we in Britain could now be having cheap energy if we’d gone on building [nuclear power stations].”
Nuclear waste? “It isn’t a problem,” he insists. “Sandy and I were invited to France, and we stood on 25 years of nuclear waste at La Hague. I had my own handheld monitor to check whether they were bullshitting me about it, and it was showing about the same reading as I was getting in this room. It was completely safe. The Swiss did a study of the number of deaths per year in all the various power systems, and nuclear beats everything.” What about the meltdown at Fukushima in 2011? “That’s the most amazing collection of lies ever known,” he says. “There is virtually no wildlife damage anywhere near Fukushima. Levels [of radiation] are much too low. Nobody was killed, nobody was even hurt, so what was all the fuss about? It’s all propaganda. People badmouth nuclear so nobody dares use it.”


Alan Robertson

The plan seems to be to take away our money so that we will be unable to afford fuels to freely move about and to take away protein food so we won’t be strong enough to rise against those who would take away our freedoms and finally our lives, as they set about their ultimate goal of reducing the human population. The average greenie may not believe that this is the plan, but climb up a bit into the hierarchy and they’ll tell you what they want to do with us. They believe that too many human beings exist and that they deserve to have the planet to themselves by reducing the rest of us.

“Observed impacts of climate change are widespread and consequential,” the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) write in a draft version of the new report, which was leaked online. The final report is being released as the IPCC meets in Yokohama, Japan.”
Ho boy, and I used to really like the National Geographic.

Steve from Rockwood

I would be careful with that one. Dairy farmers are heavily subsidized and pretty aggressive about defending their territory. Maybe the IPCC could start with this message in France 😉

Curious George

It chimes nicely with a preceding Hate Week post. To reduce the population, they are starting with those pesky, loud, obnoxious skeptics. With them gone everybody will sacrifice her/himself happily for a common good.


Creating the U.N. Now pay.

Cynical Scientst

Yes there does seem to be a bunch of media stuff coming out right now just nicely timed to try to scare the pants off the delegates at the conference. In NZ the media is making noise about an ‘Oh so scary’ report about rising sea levels. The report is of course orchestrated by the somewhat notorious Dr Salinger (who else). The warmmongers do seem to be a small fairly static community. You tend to see the same names coming up over and over again.


What about all the buffalo, mammoths, and other herd animals prior to man needing to eat them. I sure the herds of native ruminant were larger than cattle herds today.

Vegetarianism for some people is lethal.
Someone I know was a vegetarian for many years and it almost killed her, along with other horrible side effects such as a series of 12 week miscarriages. She suffers from a common physiological disorder called insulin resistance.
Insulin resistance manifests as intolerance to excessive carbohydrate in the diet – sugar, vegetables, pretty much everything except meat. The body over produces insulin, and the immune system responds to the insulin as if it was a foreign invader or a poison, and tries to eliminate it from the body. The result is an internal arms race between insulin production and immune response, with understandable severe physiological side effects.
The only cure for insulin resistance is to consume less carb – to have a diet high in protein. To eat lots of meat.
Insulin resistance as far as I can discover is an evolutionary adaption to extreme chronic undernourishment – people who overproduce insulin eke out every scrap of nutrition from food. But in a modern lifestyle it causes severe medical complications.
The doctor who explained this said it was very common, around one in 5 people are affected – that it caused severe problems in Asia and Italy and other places with high carb diets.
So anyone who argues that we must eat more carb is, in my books, arguing for the enforced misery of 1/5th of the world’s population – especially in places where an adaption to extreme famine might be more common.

Mike McMillan

J. Philip Peterson says: March 30, 2014 at 4:51 pm
… Researchers estimate that prairie bison alone numbered between 30 million and 200 million”
They number about a half a million now…

I’d venture to say that ‘most all of the starvation on this planet is caused by socialist government policies. Zimbabwe and North Korea come to mind.
In fact, I can’t think of a single free enterprise economy that has the problem.


Eat your greens my mother always said, this now takes on whole new connotations.

It is too bad for the progressives that their other attempt to destroy animal husbandry, by claining that animal products are harmful to our health, was shot down in flames last week. A large meta analysis of the data from a number of health studies showed no correlation whatsoever between meat and dairy consumption and coronary health problems. The only correlation involved trans-fats, which ironically were pushed on us by the progressives back in the 60’s as the best replacement for animal fats.
If an “evil corporation” had done this, the lawyers and activists would be up in arms, shouting for the heads of the nasty, greedy corporate devils, but since it was they, themselves, who brought this on, the progressives have no one to blame.
I think there needs to be more retrospective studies of the data for EVERY progressive proposal, going all the way back to the temperence ladies and the eugenics movement. And the results need to be publicized everywhere. It is too bad that they control the MSM, and would never allow that to happen.

I wrote a book ‘Should meat be on the menu?’ which exhaustively rebuts the attack on cattle based on the fact that they produce methane. In fact, the book concludes that good farmers, running well managed cattle, should be the heroes of the environmental movement, not the villains.
With this as the background, I find that the most common misunderstanding by people who attack livestock is that they have no idea at all where the components of the natural and organic gas, methane, come from. They think that the carbon atom in a methane molecule (CH4) comes from the ground and is a new addition to the carbon load in the atmosphere. They have no idea that this carbon atom comes from the atmosphere in the first place – by action of the sun and photosynthesis in plants, followed by the cow or sheep eating the grass. When the cow or sheep emits the methane by, in most cases, belching it, the carbon they are so worried about simply returns the place it originally came from – the atmosphere. It’s called the atmospheric carbon cycle.
The carbon cycle interacts with the water cycle and it’s all powered by natural solar energy.
The methane molecule is unstable in the atmosphere and, over time, changes to become a carbon atom in a molecule of carbon dioxide. In other words, it changes to exactly the same molecule as it was prior to photosynthesis taking place. It is then available in the carbon cycle to again be used in photosynthesis for plant growth. This cycle – powered by the sun – repeats endlessly.
Methane production is one of the inevitable consequences of the atmospheric carbon cycle – in Australia something like 80 per cent of our total methane production is by termites.
There is no addition of carbon to the carbon load in the atmosphere by the life of a cow or sheep.
If anyone is worried about the level of carbon in the atmosphere, the way we manage our sheep and cattle on farms and on rangelands can actually be one of the few practical ways we have to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it as carbon in the soil.
I am shocked that this issue raises it head from time to time with such a sense of moral outrage against sheep and cattle. I am shocked that the issue is raised by apparently credible scientific bodies.
I recommend that people research the work of Allan Savory and others.

Just keep hacking away at them. That’s all you can do, and you have done wonders. This site is noted all over the web, and quality is the reason why.
I hope Mark Steyn’s lawyers will go after the Hockey Stick, not just win the civil suit for defamation. It would be a real victory to kill the Hockey stick once and for all time.
From what I read, the IPCC is moderating predictions substantially, no doubt due to their contributor’s concern for the damage the truth will eventually do to the reputations of scientists the world over, and it’s about time.
I sense a real change in the air, and top down legislative support for Green Energy is waning. I think most legislators know the whole thing is a hoax, but they have been so intellectually invested in the whole CO2 scam that it’s hard to back down.
Although, the concept of sustainable growth, which is basically no growth, or even negative growth, is very entrenched at the local level. I see it everywhere, and I’m sure it is driven by promise of subsidies from the Federal Government. We have to stop the subsidies and the support will be gone. I live in the SF Bay Area, and I think every city in that vicinity has signed onto One Bay Area even though the citizens have no idea what the plan is, or that their cities are even involved. It’s totally about sustainability, a UN and NGO driven concept, which to these guys means people living in little cubicles and riding bikes around town, while dining in restaurants that advertise local food sources. You can get a lot of information about it on the web. Developer subsidies are a big part of the plan to get everyone on board.
Eventually the plan is to limit parking availability until cars almost vanish from the cities. Already some areas are cutting budgets for road maintenance. It’s a grand plan, they are even subtly depriving the central valley of water, to force valley residents into the cities. Water storage facilities have been under attack in California every since the 1992 Rio Conference on Sustainability. I think something like eighty dams have been removed, and four more on the Klamath are slated for removal, killing totally renewable electricity supplies, flood control, and late season water supply, go figure. Food production needs water, and our central valley supplies a lot of food to the US and Canada, but I’m afraid that is coming to an end in the next twenty years, unless attitudes change. These guys hate humanity with a vengeance.


Pielke’s iron law is going to be demonstrated and in spades on the AGW promoters. They are a bunch of mooks and deserve what’s coming.

Nobody touches my Angus Bacon, Cheddar Burger.
Telling people they can’t eat beef and bacon is a sure way to lose support.


When hamburger pizza and lasagna are outlawed, only outlaws will have hamburger pizza and lasagna.
I intend to be an outlaw. They can pry my pizza from my cold, dead hands.

Frank Kotler

First they came for the cows, and I said nothing because I was not a cow…

Chad Wozniak

Apropos some of the comments here –
Insects account for not only a high percentage of methane emissions, but also as much as half of all animal respiration emissions of CO2 – many times more than emissions from all human sources.
Vegetarians should consider the number of nutrients essential to human health and obtainable only from animal sources lately being discovered. Man’s diet before the advent of agriculture 12,000 or 13,000 years ago was at least 85% meat, and the human digestive system is that of a carnivore.
It would seem that the AGW zealots are preparing to launch a war on insects and on human nutrition in general (hitting the world’s poor first and worst, as do mall carbon policies).


“nitrous oxide from fields”
How does that work? I have heard of no-till farming being advocated by the warmists, but have never heard a simple explanation of how a field can emit nitrous oxide, or how less tilling of a field will reduce that. Anyone know?

As an alternative, we could eliminate the Swedish population, which I understand is famous for its cheese eating and flatulance. They also have no sense of humor and produce dreadfully obnoxious films.


“Is there an actual syndrome name to latch onto the environmentalist chicken littleism?”


“Eventually the plan is to limit parking availability until cars almost vanish from the cities.”
I believe you’ll find the British government has been doing that for years, intentionally pushing developers to build far less parking spaces for new office buildings than the employees would require. The end result is usually not to eliminate cars, but for the office workers to park wherever they can in neighbouring streets. Then, when the people who live in those streets complain that they can’t find anywhere to park, the government then come to the rescue with ‘residents-only parking’ scams.

I can only reply in the following fashion: