20
Worried about climate change? Eat less meat.
Commentator Mark Bittman says industrial meat production accounts for at least one-fifth of greenhouse gas emissions.
Everyone talks about the well-documented effects industrial meat production has on energy, water usage, and public health. We hear plenty about what treating animals like widgets does to our souls.
But one thing that's underplayed is the effect of industrial meat on climate change.
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization has estimated almost 20 percent of greenhouse gases are attributable to the raising of animals for food.
Some researchers claim the real number is more like 50 percent.
But the exact percentage doesn't matter. What does is that we don't take the role of livestock in climate change seriously enough.
Most proposed solutions focus on developing new forms of energy -- even though they can't be brought on line fast enough to avert what may be a coming catastrophe.
Adjusting our eating habits is a much easier fix.
Although Americans are eating somewhat less meat, it still amounts to something like 200 pounds a person every year.
If you believe that earth's natural resources are limitless, or that technology will one day fix climate change, I guess none of this worries you. But if you believe in dealing with reality, and want the planet to be a livable place for your kids, this is a big deal.
It's seldom that enormous problems have such simple solutions, but this is one that does. Yes, we want cleaner forms of energy and transportation. But don't look for those any time soon.
In the meantime, we can begin eating less meat. That's something each of us can do, with no technological advances. You've already changed your light bulbs; now, how about eating a salad?
Pages
People can be so brave, compassionate and empathetic when they are allowed to make choices. If you don't have all the information, you cannot make a choice. Most of us have plenty of information, experience and support for eating animals. What would be the harm in learning about the alternative to carnism in order to make an actual choice? Almost every single vegan used to be a meat eater before learning some information which caused them to make a drastic change in their lives. Here is a very informative speech about the psychology of eating meat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7vWbV9FPo_Q
The reason environmentalism gets no further than feel-good tokenisms like eating less meat, keeping our tires inflated, and biking to work on Fridays is that almost everyone looks at individual aspects of a problem that insists on being addressed as a whole.
It isn't just global warming, fracking, cow farts, overpopulation, deforestation, mass extinctions, or habitat loss. It's all that and more, though it can be condensed to three basic, underlying elements: population growth, the industrialization necessary to support those numbers, and the consequences of both population and industrialization, which include environmental degradation and resource exhaustion.
Bottom line: Unless we're serious enough about the survival of our grandchildren to reverse population growth, abandon the cancer-mimicking philosophy of perpetual growth on a finite planet, and shoot for a vastly simpler social equation (think 1850 with electric trains, modern medicine, and 1- or 2-child families), the obit for "civilization as we know it" will be written in this century.
Much as we'd all like to deny it, the numbers just aren't there to support another outcome. Among other things, our lifestyle adds another Germany to the census each year, destroys a forest the size of England, and creates a desert as big as Maine. And we surpassed the population that could be sustained without fossil fuels about a hundred years ago. If you want a real, objective eye-opener, go to the industry websites for some of your favorite resources (aluminum, uranium, copper, platinum, lithium, rare earth minerals, etc.), divide "estimated annual consumption" into "estimated global reserves," and see how long we have left -- even if global warming happened to be a good thing.
Hint: For marketing reasons, you're not likely to find "annual consumption" and "global reserves" on the same page. And if you're thinking about mining the moon, do the cost-per-unit math first.
"We hear plenty about what treating animals like widgets does to our souls."
I stopped listening to Mr. Bittman's piece at this point. (Literally. I manually dragged the podcast cursor forward a couple of minutes.)
There's very little in the marketplace of ideas that I won't listen to, but the philosophies behind ethical vegetarianism certainly qualify. Like Birthers, Flat Earthers, and those that claim the moon landing was faked; taking even one second to mention the viewpoint's existence is one second too much.
Acknowledging something, even briefly, gives it a modicum of credibility that this topic does not deserve, and Marketplace's credibility is tarnished for allowing Mr. Bittman to do so.
Tbaum, if you claim that animal suffering does not disturb you, you are either lying, or you are a sociopath. I suspect that you are lying. Non-humans are relevant and their interests are not apart from our own. This truth is extremely frightening for people who are smart enough to understand the implications but are not ready for change. I think you should ask yourself why you are afraid to feel compassion. If we can live perfectly happy, healthy lives, without hurting anyone, why wouldn't we?
Please do the responsible thing and stop touting celebrity chefs as expert scientists. If I don't understand a subject, I don't talk or write about it. Chefs shouldn't present themselves as agriculture experts, just as I don't present myself as an expert in making a roux.
"The exact percentage doesn't matter?" I guess not if you're making up the numbers anyway. If Chef Bittman would read more than just what he wants to believe, he would know that UN report was proved wrong, and some of the writers of that report admitted they had made errors. In truth, cattle produce less than 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Less than 3 percent is a far cry from 18 percent ("nearly 20 percent") or "more like 50 percent." Agriculture as a whole accounts for only 5.8 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
Sources: http://airquality.ucdavis.edu/pages/events/2009/greenacres/DairyMitloehn...
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2010/03/4133-meatless-mondays-campaign-re...
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2008/10/3742-livestocks-shrinking-us-shadow/
Agriculture has made tremendous strides in sustainability. Modern dairy farming uses considerably fewer resources than dairy farming did in 1944. Dairying produces the same amount of milk using 21% as many animals, 23% as much feed, 35% as much water and only 10% of the land used in 1944. Further, modern dairy farms produce much less manure, CH4 and N2O than 1944 dairies produced. The carbon footprint for milk produced in 2007 was 37% of the 1944 carbon footprint.
Source: http://jas.fass.org/content/early/2009/03/13/jas.2009-1781.full.pdf+html
That's research done by real scientists and published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal.
Modern livestock production has many similar success stories. For example, America’s beef producers produced the same amount of meat in 2008 as produced in 1975, but with 37 million fewer cattle.
We need high-yield agriculture to feed the world's growing population. I don't eat as much meat as the average American, but I will continue to eat meat without guilt.
"The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), formerly the Guest Choice Network, is an American non-profit firm that lobbies on behalf of the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. It describes itself as "dedicated to protecting consumer choices and promoting common sense,"[2] and defending "the right of adults and parents to choose how they live their lives, what they eat and drink, how they manage their finances, and how they enjoy themselves."[1]
CCF was set up in 1995 by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company to fight smoking curbs in restaurants." _wikipedia.com, which only allows proven publically available information as the basis for it's entries.
And the GABS conference prop you cited is every bit as biased and distorted. Are you a greenwasher, Anita? Or just easily lead?
I attended a rally at the first Earth Day in 1970. One speaker when asked what we could do to help our planet said: "On a personal level, there are 2 things you can do. Don't eat meat and recycle your waste."
In 1970 recycling was a new and radical idea, but now look at it. Not eating meat had to be explained to us, and that was before anyone was talking about deforestation for meat production, or methane from cattle as a problem.
These are still good things to do. Not the answer, but still worth doing.
Mark Bittman is a chef, not a scientist. He should stick to recipes. Climate change is far, far more complicated than this, as is food production. There are factory farms, and then there are grass-based production systems that sequester carbon in the soil, build biodiversity, and produce excellent quality meat. If Mark Bittman can't get a grip on the details he should be quiet. And radio programs like Marketplace should stop considering him an expert on the topic - because he isn't. He is a chef.
Pages
