New UN Report Says Eat Less Meat To Curb Climate Change

Telegraph:

The report, that will be presented to world governments, said the only way to feed the world while reducing climate change is to switch to more a more vegetarian diet.

"A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change," it read.

Read the whole story: Telegraph

Comments

[goldfarmer]

05:18 PM on 06/18/2010

As a meat eater, I didn't see much in the story that I could disagree with. It never says to "stop eating meat", just eat less of it. I wish I could get a close look at that "study", because I suspect that it does not take into consideration the difference between sustainably raised and feedlot raised, and distance of product travel. From my experience as a farmer, I have a hard time believing they considered that at all, to form their conclusion.

We won't be doing the right thing by tilling under meat producing grasslands to produce more vegetables. Less meat consumption would definitely push more more land currently under row crop production to be geared more toward feeding people directly vs feeding an animal first, which would be good to do. But it in NO WAY means that there is something wrong with eating meat produced in a way which is grown naturally as it should be.

[jc271]

05:54 PM on 06/06/2010

Then again, perhaps we should eat more meat to save the planet:

Livestock might not be just the cause of desertification--they might also be the solution.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1655491/plan-to-turn-deserts-green-wins-2010-buckminster-fuller-challenge

[SparkyGump]

10:41 PM on 06/04/2010

This has been well known for quite some time. It's just more proof that humans need to live in harmony with "their" planet or die along with it.

[redcelt]

09:47 PM on 06/04/2010

Hate oil pollution? Really?

[libby libby]

09:37 PM on 06/04/2010

UN= Unnecessary Nitwits

The USA should pull out of this anti-U.S. hodgepodge organization of hoi poloi diplomats.

[redcelt]

09:50 PM on 06/04/2010

Eat no meat = use less oil and water. Period.

[elcerritan]

04:10 PM on 06/18/2010

Sorry, this is simplistic to the point of being laughable. Plant crops also need water (some of them need a hell of a lot) and, as grown on a large industrial scale, they also use fertilizers derived from oil. And both meat and plant foods are transported from producer to consumer using fossil fuels.

[amber15]

02:44 PM on 06/04/2010

I'm already a vegan, don't eat meat or use dairy products.

Vegetarians are a growing segment despite the attempt by the meat industry to keep ppl buying their products.

[mike1608]

12:56 PM on 06/04/2010

This is nothing new from the UN, who even its own researchers admitted that it's report on livestock and greenhouse gases was wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

And another:

http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2010/02/10/uc-scientist-dont-blame-the-cows/

And as more work is done, researchers are beginning to understand that more intensive livestock systems may actually produce less GHGs than other methods. It all comes down to efficiency and production methods. When the UN publishes a revised analysis it will include some of these production variables.

My guess is it will find that more intensive systems produce fewer GHGs. If you look at EPA's analysis of all of agriculture (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_Agriculture.pdf), it adds up to 6%. Cattle is half that total. Why the difference from the U.N. figures? Because agriculture in the U.S. is more efficient at every step of the chain.

[DebbyM]

10:58 PM on 06/18/2010

Read your two links and it would appear that the funding for the research that they both point to was bought and paid for by the beef and the pork industry. Any accountant knows that you can make the books say one thing for the bank (if you are seeking a loan) and something else for the tax man. Same goes for research, all depends on who pays for it and what is in their best interests.

[grumpyfarmer]

09:17 AM on 06/04/2010

Yes, we should plow up the grasslands and plant soybeans. Much more environmentally friendly.

I watched a movie on TV the other day I believe was called "Inside the Gates" about a church compound in Rwanda guarded by Belgian UN peacekeepers, where about 2500 were slaughtered because the UN left them high and dry. It is a little hard to have respect for such an organization.

Want to be more environmentally friendly? Have fewer children, live in a smaller house, etc, etc.

[Crows]

07:19 PM on 06/04/2010

"Yes, we should plow up the grasslands and plant soybeans. Much more environmentally friendly."

Or, continue to clear-cut the rain forest so hamburger eaters may forever pleasure their taste buds.

[Vickster]

11:16 PM on 06/05/2010

Don't forget bananas, pineapples and other tropical fruits or coffee and chocolate. There has also been a move among agribusiness (Del Monte, Libby's, etc.) to move production from California and Florida to Argentina, Brazil and Mexico.

In my opinion, it would be a good thing if we rejected the modern trend of eating the same diet regardless of where we live and returned to eating regional (local) diets. And for most of us, this would include eating a fair amount of meat during the colder months.

[nameunused]

01:14 AM on 06/04/2010

I didn't know anyone was still pretending they believe in man caused global warming.

[roseau]

08:36 AM on 06/04/2010

Only people who understand science and don't think the rapture will save the saved.

[elcerritan]

04:12 PM on 06/18/2010

Then you need to get out more.

[billshut]

08:44 PM on 06/03/2010

The UN huh. Yeah, I'll be wiping my backside with this report, thanks.

[Crows]

08:56 PM on 06/03/2010

Praying for paper cuts.

[billshut]

07:59 PM on 06/04/2010

Typical lib, always wishing physical harm to those with whom they disagree.

[friedfish2718]

08:33 PM on 06/03/2010

if vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

stop being humanitarian!!!

[billshut]

08:44 PM on 06/03/2010

I'm a vagitarian myself ...

[Vickster]

11:24 PM on 06/05/2010

Smells like fish, tastes like chicken?

[cef911f1]

03:34 PM on 06/04/2010

I think you have it backwards. Humanitarians are those concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare. Therefore, vegetarians are those working hard so vegetables can have a better life.

[billshut]

07:59 PM on 06/04/2010

So that they can scream when they are killed.

[SweetJudith]

06:12 PM on 06/03/2010

How many years have we been telling people this?!? But as long as BIG AG has so much power, our world doesn't stand a chance. Please go vegan, there are so many great dishes you can find. My husband has fun creating his own dishes. The whole family can, and you're helping the world and taking cruelty off your plate. Just give it chance....

[Rozanna]

05:39 AM on 06/04/2010

It seem shat otherwise smart and concerned citizens don't quite get this piece of the problem. Actually this information has been around for quite awhile.

[Crows]

07:28 PM on 06/04/2010

Yes, many studies by reputable researchers over the last several years have shown similar results.

[goldfarmer]

05:53 PM on 06/18/2010

respectfully,
your logic that the only way to fight "Big Ag" is to completely eliminate any use of animals or animal byproducts...
I don't understand. Am I missing something?

There are many other ways to do it.

[MamaontheGo]

04:36 PM on 06/03/2010

I wish there were a bit more clarification/specificity about the difference between raising food animals in a fossil-fuel intensive, CAFO environment as most US meat is raised, and more traditional animal husbandry methods (cattle, pigs, goats/sheep and chickens on pasture) that have a much lower ecological impact. There is a huge difference between the carbon footprint of a grain-fed feedlot cow and a grass-fed cow, and a huge nutritional and taste difference in the quality of the meat. Raising food animals in the way it has been done for thousands of years is more humane and ecologically sound. It does not produce as much quantity of meat, but most people in the USA should eat a lot less meat/dairy anyway in the interest of health.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1200759,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953692-1,00.html

I think that making agriculture environmentally sustainable means returning to small-scale local production, with more small, biodiversified and organic farms. It's not a question of meat or no meat, it's a question of what kind of meat and crops are we producing and how.

[Vickster]

11:34 PM on 06/05/2010

Can't argue with that. And I'll raise your rose for my poppy...

You've been fanned.

[Crows]

08:34 AM on 06/06/2010

For me, much of what you say makes a lot of sense. If it could be the way you say, the world would be better. But because a diet excluding animal products is healthier than one including animal products; and because staggering numbers of animals are abused and killed early on in their lives, only to provide meat for the bun and plate, it *does* become "a question of meat or no meat..."

[MamaontheGo]

12:07 PM on 06/06/2010

I think the key phrase you use is "if it could be the way you say...". It can, it certainly is in the area where I live, more and more people are getting off CAFO meat and dairy, and only consuming animal products that are raised humanely and sustainably. And we do eat less meat because of it.

I think for people who live in areas where non-CAFO meat and dairy are unavailable or prohibitively expensive, vegetarianism might be the better choice. I don't agree about total vegetarianism being healthy for everyone, as a former vegetarian and as someone who knows a lot of vegetarians (some healthy, some not) I have come to the conclusion that a small amount of animal food in the diet may be best for some, not all. I have spoken with many holistically-minded doctors and nutritionists who agree--diet is not "one size fits all" because we all have such different genetic makeups. But the UN report is dead on that we could all eat a whole lot less meat/dairy and be much healthier. The average US diet is insane.

I think that anyone who chooses to eat meat/dairy has to sit down and take a good hard look at where that food is coming from, and make the commitment not to eat fast food, not to eat animal products that are not raised sustainably and not close their eyes to what goes on on factory farms.

[StopGlobalWarmingBeVegan]

04:31 PM on 06/03/2010

vegetarian society is coming...

[SweetJudith]

06:15 PM on 06/03/2010

It's here!

[elcerritan]

07:06 PM on 06/19/2010

Maybe in YOUR circle, but don't kid yourself.

[Animal Compassion]

12:02 PM on 06/04/2010

Vegan Society...otherwise there will be a massive cull on humanity due to lack of resources to care for everyone.

[Vickster]

11:48 PM on 06/05/2010

Mmmm... Do you realize that roughly 75% of North America can't support large-scale crop production for most of the year? Some regions can't support any large-scale crop production. So what should people who live in these regions do? Import most (or all) of their food?

As for a massive cull of humanity, in my opinion, we are now watching that happen on the continent with the most fragile habitats. And as goes Africa, so goes the world. It's just going to take a little longer.

[elcerritan]

07:21 PM on 06/19/2010

Not likely. Even in India, which has a very long history of a significant percentage (about 30%) of the population following vegetarianism for religious reasons, the only group that follows a vegan diet are a SUBSET of the Jains. MOST Jains are lacto-vegetarians, however, and the entire population of Jains comprises only one half of one percent of the India's population, so the full-bore vegan Jains are an even smaller group (and that group also doesn't eat root vegetables). "Vegan Society" is never going to happen in the US and it certainly isn't going to happen because of "lack of resources." The US is as well set up for meat production, especially 100% grass fed beef production, as it is for production of crops, so don't let your vegan fantasies run away with you.

[HLL]

03:13 PM on 06/03/2010

It is a fact that raising cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772&CR1=warning

I'm a vegan vegetarian because I love animals; I don't eat or wear them. But each person has to make that decision for themselves. It is good to have the facts, however, and besides being incredibly cruel, killing the some 56 billion animals a year to feed the world causes incredible pollution problems.

Great article: http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm

[smbart]

04:02 PM on 06/03/2010

The IPCC did a complete LCA for food production but considered burning fossil fuels as the only energy input for transportation. Its not a valid comparison. An article contradicting your point is actually linked on the Telegraphs website:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

[roseau]

08:38 AM on 06/04/2010

Exactly. Eating local, grass-fed beef is not horrible for the environment. But it's expensive because the true cost isn't hidden or subsidized. That honest pricing leads to consuming less. That sounds like something familiar...um...wait for it....market forces?! Without giant subsidies and deferred costs, the real free market would drive us all to eat less meat and less of everything.

[Vickster]

11:55 PM on 06/05/2010

I respect your choice, but realize that most of us can love animals and eat them too. That said, I'm not a fan of modern trends in crop or livestock production.

[Crows]

09:50 AM on 06/06/2010

Let's see....animal love - your version: I love animals so I condone their abuse and their slaughter. Then I eat them.

Isn't love grand?