Your Diet has More Climate Change Impact than your Car
Since many of my friends are engineers my community's approach to the environmental crisis is usually technical. Friends who drive hybrids, have installed solar power on their roofs, several who are totally self sustaining by installing solar power panels that sell back to the utilities etc.
But my approach has been a little different. I stopped eating red meat 15 months ago now after reading a particularly disturbing book about the abattoir practices in the U.S. Not an unusual decision but one that I think will become more and more common -- although I do realize humans like to eat meat (I myself fall off the wagon about 3 times a year).
The reason this trend will grow isn't that Americans suddenly start caring about eating animals with the intelligence of their young children, but because of the carbon footprint of the meat industry. It'll be because the meat industry produces more carbon emissions than the auto industry (cows belching -- amazing but true). For example, 4oz of steamed vegetables have a carbon footprint of 0.18lbs, 4 oz of pasta has 0.39 lbs and 4oz of steak has 10.5lbs. See the excellent Time article here.
Hybridization of cars is the easiest big impact change we can make, but it's a very expensive change. While we have a Prius for the family, I still drive a 7-year-old gas-guzzling Jaguar convertible and I expect I'll drive it into the ground since it's a very high carbon footprint to replace it with any new car -- and more cost effective to drive the car to the end of it's natural life (plus it's the most fun I've had behind the wheel of a car since I was dating).
If it's time for you to buy a car then buy a hybrid, but if you aren't in the market for a new car today the highest impact change you can make is to stop eating meat -- and it's good for you too.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Keep in mind that most of the produce a the local supermarket, including WHOLE FOODS has travelled 1500 miles. Now with corporate agriculture cashing in on the orgainc market, they are trucking in "certified organic" produce from Mexico. Wait another year or two, most of the apples sold in this country will be coming from China.
Want to be economically, socially, and environmentely friendly with regard to your food purchases, buy what is in season from a local farmer. Yes, it will cost more, but how much? Not that much, pass up a Starbucks and give the extra to the guy or gal growing fresh greens and tomatoes down the street. Or better yet, turn the computer off, go outside an grow your own.
I rely on Pepin's easy bread recipe for fresh bakery bread. It wipes out the carbon footprint for processed bread. I grow bean sprouts, which wipes out food store produce to a large extent. I wonder why you don't mention those two items as an offset to those who eat meat? Those two changes in my diet, have impacted on the amount of meat I consume. I suspect it would do the same for others. Maybe we don't all have to buy a used jaguar and eliminate meat to feel proud to be an American.
Most of the hype on this subject - like this article and the one pointed to from Time - are simply wrong.
One could call it BS. It's data with spin - an agenda - and it NOT being truthfully portrayed.
The true carbon footprint that we should worry about comes from two primary sources: Transportation and deforestation, both of which are shared concerns with agribusiness.
The other supposed concerns are simply misplaced - bad science.
For example, the oft cited methane from belching cows, while true forgets the relevance; Carbon that's on a short cycle is not important, it's the long cycle carbon that's important.
To be clear, the short carbon cycle, which we do NOT need to worry about is:
Atmosphere --> plant --> [cow | pig | chicken, etc] --> atmosphere
It's the LONG cycle that we need to worry about wherein stored carbon is added to the short cycle:
Fossil fuel --> industrial process / burning --> atomosphere (wherein it joins the cycle above)
So articles like this are doing a huge disservice to the public by distorting the science. It's hard enough to educate the populace on scientific topics as it is; spouting this type of misdirection is, to my mind, unethical and should be called on the carpet every time.
Note: There ARE good reasons to go vegetarian, this just isn't one of them.
.
You're correct that much of the CO2 emitted during livestock production was previously absorbed during feedstock production.
However, it takes 3-10 calories of feed to produce 1 calorie of meat, and there are large long-cycle carbon inputs associated with producing all that excess biomass.
I agree that agribusiness is a much greater threat to the environment than meat production. We've converted much of our fertile plains into tracts of sandy inert rooting media for a bizarre form of chemical spray hydroponics.
Good books on food and diet:
Diet for a Small Planet
http://www.amazon.com/Diet-Small-Planet-20th-Anniversary/dp/0345321200
Enter the Zone
http://www.amazon.com/Zone-Dietary-Permanently-Physical-Performance/dp/0060391502/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236229017&sr=1-1
Actually, the BIGGEST impact we can all have to reduce CO2 emissions is for humans to cease breathing.
The direct effect of reducing exhalation itself would create a massive reduction, but when you think of the cascading benefits...less driving, lower energy consumption, less meat eating....we could easily reverse the effects of climate change within a decade.
Any volunteers?
You go first.
Howabout we outlaw Octomoms?
.
Your attitude towards the Jag is typical. You don't really want to sacrifice, so you invent all kinds of "carbon offsets" to make yourself feel better. I do the same. We all do.
You wrote a really nice article, but it's not about greenhouse gases. It's about human psychology. Or, as they used to say in the old days "The mind is willing, but the flesh is weak."
As for the hybrid car being the easiest way to make an impact, that's simply wrong. The easiest ways to make an impact are by reducing electricity use for lighting, replacing inefficient refrigerators with energy efficient new models, by hang drying clothes instead of using a dryer and a host of other small things. Then comes home insulation and possibly the upgrade of the heating system to solar water.
The hybrid car, while great (I got a Prius as many may know), is way down on the list of cost effective measures to save energy. The best way to save transportation energy is to carpool, anyway. A used SUV with four people in it beats four Prius on the road easily in terms of energy efficiency.
You forget the manufacturing cost of new; replace when it needs replacement and when you do, with an efficient version.
.
What we need to do is radically change our farming methods. All farm animals must be kept inside large buildings that capture the methane that these animals give off. This methane could then be used to power generators. Also the animals are going to poop and in addition to making a mess this poop also gives off gases. The animals should be kept in a position so that their rumps are kept positioned over a conveyor belt that would catch the poop and transport it to a tank that would hold it until it could be used as fertilizer. The key is the animals would have to keep their rumps over the conveyor at all times as cows are apt to poop wherever they are rather than in a designated area. For simplicity a food trough could be kept in front of the cows face so it could eat when hungry.
CA recently passed a very Earth un-friendly law outlawing these measures. We need to tell the CA legislature that we care about the Earth and to implement these ideas today!
You're on the right track. We should be using manure to generate methane. Capturing animal outgassing isn't practical for _many_ reasons...
.
I don't eat red meat, but lets be honest here. All the problems with cows *exist with all dairy products*, in fact I would say higher since dairy cows live longer, have to remain dairy cows by giving birth, and eat a whole lot. Even though I don't eat red meat (and haven't for almost 30 years) I do support anyone who does eat 100% (or as close as possible) grass fed meat.
I hate hypocrisy in any form. To me it is one of the most insidious aspects of the human psyche. I could give tons of non food examples, but to avoid controversy, as far as global warming and dairy is concerned, anyone who has those concerns needs to stop eating dairy altogether. That means yogurt, cheese, butter and ice cream.
I won't give up my butter or cream, although I don't eat tons, I have to have them in sauces and therefore I cannot look down on anyone who eats a steak.
The only way that people will stop eating red meat is if it becomes to expensive. And it will.
I am a meat eater, but am very interested in this topic. (I would like to change)
Penny, could you share the Title of the book you read that helped you make the change?
Health insurance companies could benefit from offering a lower rate to vegetarians.
Vegetarians have better blood test results across the board.
If our new health care system is going to incorporate prevention than life style along with diet play an important part of prevention and healthy habits:
Example:
Plant Based Diet.
No Alcohol.
Tobacco Free.
Prescription Drug Free.
Recreational Drug Free.
Sober Living.
I believe I would rather pay the higher premiums and have fun.
Or better yet once universal health care is forced on us I'll really start to live it up since the cost of my healthcare will be borne by others.
I'd be more than happy for you to get a small subsidy from the government to abuse your body if it means I can go to the doctor's office without worrying if it's going to break the bank.
You want to talk about health care? We(Americans) already pay more than any country that has universal health care. Like Ross Perot said RWM, you're already paying box seat prices, and the American health care industry has you sitting in obstructed view!
What you say in this article is true of large commercial meat production, especially cattle. However, small farms, which produce meat in a humane and responsible manner, recycling their waste products into fertilize for other crops, do not create such problems. So the problem is not eating meat, but eating meat produced by massive monocultural systems, or, corporate meat production. As well as not eating meat produced by these means, buying locally produced meat products, produced by small farmers who have humane rearing methods and utilize the waste from their animal production to fertilize their plant crops is a viable alternative that will help the environment, help local economies and provide naturally produced meat and vegetable crops, grown in local soil and thus healthier for you than those produced in soil environments half way across the country. To frame this as "must not every eat meat to save the earth" is a bit over the top and is really not being totally honest about the facts of small, local farming. All farming is not the same. Farming is not the problem. Corporations are the problem. One of the solutions is to not patronize them and their monoculture agricultrural methods. Think globally, act locally.
If you ramp up small local farm beef production to cover all beef consumption in the US today you simply geographically redistribute the problem.
Meatless Mondays!
Tangy Tuesdays!
Wheat Free Wednesdays!
We will not solve global warming by green energy, the development is too slow and tipping point is here already. The #1 cause of global warming is meat so it's much wiser to attack the main problem. Trying to solve global warming by green energy is like America trying to be energy independent from drilling oil. Check out the real solution here. Thanks.
http://www.suprememastertv.com/
See Penny Herscher's Profile
I understand the principle you are describing here and when I buy meat for my husband and son (who are not interested in being vegetarian in any way) I do try to buy locally grown meat. But a) it's hard to find outside of Whole Foods, even in California, and b) that still doesn't solve the scale of the problem in the US that the quantity of meat the US eats, and dairy we consume, leads to a quantity of cattle that is not healthy for the environment. And I absolutely agree with you in terms of produce - and buy locally grown when I can find it.
Well then you have a choice to make: are you going to clearly explain this when you write about the issue, or are you going to continue with the pointless and futile push to get people to give up meat? I think a very convincing case for eating a lot LESS meat can be made--but cutting it out altogether? Not going to happen, especially since the problems you attribute to "eating meat" are really due to "eating meat that was farmed unsustainably."
As a person who hasn't eaten meat or fish of any kind for 35 years, I thoroughly endorse any step in that direction. And calling attention to diet's quantitative impact on GW is much needed.
Diet is a side issue. The fundamental problem driving climate change, environmental degradation, desertification, and the myriad other challenges facing humanity is that there are simply too many people. The biosphere simply cannot support a human population of seven billion (and rising) in any kind of sustainable fashion, and no amount of conservation or lifestyle change can alter that. If we can collectively,as a race, control, and ultimately reduce our numbers, humanity is screwed. It's just that simple.
Agreed, the problem here is HUMAN overpopulation. I've read Earth can support 1 to 50 billion people depending on how resources are allocated. If we all live “Beverly Hills” then 1B, if we live “Australian Aborigine” then 50B. We'll pass 10B in the next 20-30 years.
I raise Alpacas. They are modified ruminants with far more efficient 3 chamber stomachs than the 7 stomach cow system. A properly bred and managed Alpaca can produce 5-10 pounds of 16-19 micron fiber better than cashmere, doing the same work as 10-20 cashmere goats.
We have solar, compost the Alpaca poo for our vegetable garden and will have a wind turbine soon. (Someday I'll be off the Grid completely.) We don't eat much meat and are trying to eat less. I drive and fly far less than when I had a city job. We live at 6600ft and never need A/C. The house is well insulated with the north and west walls built into a hill, we keep the temp at 62 degrees and wear Alpaca sweaters. I have 50 Alpacas now, we'll need 200-250 to run a large-scale fiber operation; far fewer head than your average beef producer.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
