Less Meat, Less Heat -- Fewer Steaks may Save Planet

Less Meat, Less Heat -- Fewer Steaks may Save Planet

today.reuters.co.uk

Worldwide, agricultural activity accounts for about a fifth of total greenhouse-gas emissions and livestock production has a particularly big impact because of the large amount of methane emitted from belching cattle.

Tony McMichael of the Australian National University in Canberra and John Powles of the University of Cambridge, writing in the Lancet journal, said worldwide average meat consumption could be realistically reduced by 10 percent.

This would help in the battle against..

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Removed copy/paste over the 500 character limit.

[edit on 14-9-2007 by UM_Gazz]

This news item I found under "Oddly Enough".

Strange! To me there's nothing odd about such a proposal, it is highly needed and should be subject for legislation. IMO.

If we wanna save the planet of course.

If you rather wanna follow your cravings, forget about this "odd" news.

It's a touchy subject I know, especially to heavy meat eating Westerners. None the less I suggest everybody to take a stance on it.

Meat eating not only takes a tenfold more land to produce a given amount of protein, but the produce of it is the single biggest source of greenhouse gasses.

I found the original article in the Lancet. You'll need (free) regristration to access it.

Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health

•Greenhouse-gas emissions from the agriculture sector account for about 22% of global total emissions; this contribution is similar to that of industry and greater than that of transport. Livestock production (including transport of livestock and feed) accounts for nearly 80% of the sector's emissions

•Methane and nitrous oxide (which are both potent greenhouse gases and closely associated with livestock production) contribute much more to this sector's warming effect than does carbon dioxide

•Halting the increase of greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture, especially livestock production, should therefore be a top priority, because it could curb warming fairly rapidly. However, livestock production is projected, on current trends, to increase substantially over the next four decades, mainly in countries of low or middle income.

The hurdle will be the beef lobby probably being as powerful as is the arms lobby.

But it would be an intelligent way to do something about global warming. And the side effects would for certain benefit the general health of the populace.

For a footnote, defending meat eating habits from an oral or sentimental ("It tastes good") perspective is not the debate I would like to see, but rather an ecological perspective.

Beside from the mental and physical aspects, what is the enviromental impacts of meat eating?

today.reuters.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

this has to be the most ridiculous explanation ever. It's PETA's official stance as well, if that tells you anything.

So just to clear this up - the difference between 500 cows in 50 acres is different from 800 cows in 500 acres how?

do they fart more when closer together? LOL.

I'm European, but I have looked up PETA. They don't threaten me.
Let me just say the base of their agenda is sentimental. I prefer an ideological approach toa the topic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ridiculous". It's a sientific study.

Your question I don't get what it's pointing at.


[edit on 13-9-2007 by khunmoon]

Doesn't methane break down in the environment naturally? Turns into water and carbon dioxide, if my chemistry is correct.

I'd argue that drilling for oil releases as much if not more methane in the environment.

Thanks, Khunmoon. People usually laugh at me when I talk about the planet needing less meat production, but for a full explanation I suggest reading John Robbins' "Diet for a New America". It is extremely well-documented with tons of good sources.

The problem is that it takes more land to raise beef than to produce crops. So, in some places such as the Amazon, they are cutting down the jungle to make grazing land for cattle. I think it's something like one acre that is needed for each cow. In that same acre, you can plant lots of vegetables instead, which will feed more people. We really don't need all the protein we Westerners love to eat. I eat meat about once or twice a week and feel just fine.
When you clear the land, you take away the trees, which help control greenhouse gases. Also, if we all ate less meat, there would be more food for more people.

Not again

What they don't tell you is that one of the biggest sources of CO2 is burning rainforests - primarily to enable palm oil and soya to be grown.

Rice growing is another big cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Especially methane.

If they were really concerned about stopping global warming they'd be campaigning to ban vegetarian products .........



btw - Stop rainforest destruction and you cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% overnight.



Edit:

livestock production has a particularly big impact because of the large amount of methane emitted from belching cattle.

Who killed all the cows then? Despite increased methane being released by melting permafrost (supposedly ) atmospheric levels continue to refuse to rise .....

www.dar.csiro.au...

[edit on 13-9-2007 by Essan]

Has science ever stated WHEN Global Warming started?

Millions of years ago, there were mega heards of Herbivores running around farting, large ones at that.

Has this contributed to where we are today in regards to GW?

I'm thinking no.



On a side note:

Its probably a good thing fire hadn't been invented until later.

reply to post by Essan


I beg to differ. There has been a massive disinformation campaign in regards to palm oil and soya. Palm oil trees take 7 years to mature, then after that it bears fruit a couple of times a year. There is no need to burn rainforests for more land. That's just a red-herring to blame the third world. Soya can be replanted on the same plot annually. Again, no need to burn rainforests.

All that smoke that comes out from burning in Indonesia is actually from farmers practising slash and burn methods to clear the previous years farmland. These people aren't stupid, they won't simply burn the rainforests. Much more profitable to log the place or acquire rattan and sandalwood from it.

However there are a small number of spots where they slash and burn mangrove forests to expand the farmland. In it's place, they plant rice fields. Again a necessity, since they've got 200 million mouths to feed.

this article didn't mention deforestation, it talks about METHANE (so belching and farting by livestock).

My question is - how woul eating LESS meat solve the problem? If anything, we should eat MORE, to there are less cows to do the farting and belching.

And if that is indeed the case, why would 500 cows on one farm farting be any different than 500 cows roaming free in the countryside farting?

•Methane and nitrous oxide (which are both potent greenhouse gases and closely associated with livestock production) contribute much more to this sector's warming effect than does carbon dioxide

I forgot who said this, but it was a great quote (which I will also paraphrase). To solve most of the world's environmental problems - kill all the cows.

No more fast food burgers, no more deforestation, no more mcdonalds taking over the global market.

Originally posted by Essan

What they don't tell you is that one of the biggest sources of CO2 is burning rainforests - primarily to enable palm oil and soya to be grown.

Maybe your right. I think the thawing of the Sibherian tundra contributes more. But it stuns me farting cows emit more than the total of the world's transportation.

Anyway I'm glad you bring up palm oil ...for biofuel, the greatest danger to humans together with meateating. Not only makes it food more expensive by reducing supply, but what's left has for a considerable part to be fed cattle. The most uneconimic way to produce proteins.

If they were really concerned about stopping global warming they'd be campaigning to ban vegetarian products .........

I don't get that. Please explain yourself.

btw - Stop rainforest destruction and you cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% overnight.

As pointed out by Forestlady, cattle herding is the main cause.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by khunmoon]

Originally posted by khunmoon

If they were really concerned about stopping global warming they'd be campaigning to ban vegetarian products .........

I don't get that. Please explain yourself.

Let me venture a guess. Vegetarian products a.k.a. fake meat is made primarily from soya. Per acre, soya doesn't produce as much protein as cattle.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Are you really sure about that? Cattle produce more protein per acre than soya!!!?

I thought it was the other way around.

I'm a vegan and that's simply my choice.
If people want to eat meat, that's their choice.
I just happen to feel better without the stuff. Funnily enough, people always assume it has to do with animal welfare/cruelty, but I have no strong views on that aspect.

The 'report' is nothing new and yes it can be counteracted by deforestation in order to grow soya and biofuels.
So here's a proposal to suit both 'camps'.
Why not keep the cattle and each of us have one for the cold winter months.
Either eat the meat or light it's butt and use the heat for your home energy requirements!

Originally posted by TommyCrown
light it's butt and use the heat for your home energy requirements!

something tells me PETA would "have a cow" (pun intended) over that as well.

Originally posted by khunmoon
reply to post by Beachcoma

 

Are you really sure about that? Cattle produce more protein per acre than soya!!!?

I thought it was the other way around.

After reading more about it I concede that I might have been mistaken. Still, I was just guessing what Essan might have meant with his statement.

I remember a few years ago reading a book by a Californian authour I think, entitled 'From the fryer into the fuel tank' or something similar regarding how to make your own biofuel.
In this book the author advocated that used frying oil was better than brand new stuff.
If that's the case then we should keep all these 'fast food' meat outlets so people have a good source of fuel for their vehicles.

No need to quit eating our beloved tasty bovines.

We just need to reclaim the methane.

A process has already been patented!

www.patentstorm.us...
Process for the utilization of ruminant animal methane emissions
US Patent Issued on January 3, 2006

A process for the utilization of the methane contained within ruminant animal exhalation, specifically to a process that utilizes the methane contained within ruminant animal exhalation as a source of carbon and/or energy for the production of methane-utilizing microorganisms in a microorganism growth-and-harvest apparatus.

Problem solved!

[edit on 13-9-2007 by apc]

reply to post by apc


Damnit! I'm gonna have to toss this sketch of a similar thing I just started working on after reading this thread :bnghd:

I'm on board with the program...

I'm reducing the number of steaks, one juicy delicious bite at a time...



Carnivore Monkeys, not just for snacking high on the food chain anymore...