One of the things the Clarion article doesn't, er, clarify, Jeff, is that fossil fuel use is a chunky factor in the report's estimate of livestock's contribution to greenhouse emissions.
That's because fossil fuels are used heavily in the manufacture and transport of fertilizers to grow the grain that feeds the livestock, especially in North America and other developed areas, and increasingly in the developing sector.
So even if we wanted to breathe a sigh of relief that we are momentarily off the hook, we can't. Our meat and potatoes dinner table three times a day reels us right back in.
Still the report is a pretty good read. (Haven't read all 407 pages yet!)
Bottom line is that you and I are far more capable of reducing livestock greenhouse emissions than are the people for whom livestock is perhaps their only source of protein (chiefly milk), fuel (recycling those cow pies!), and eventually tools and clothing (hides & bones).
Among our choices are to buy locally grown, range-fed meats that are raised on certified organic land, eat less meat (or none at all), and educate ourselves about other ways we can make a difference.
Lester Brown's book, Plan B is a good resource, because he really does have a plan for ordinary people and for leaders the world over.
Thanks for the feedback, Grace. I don't think we're off the hook at all with this development -- it's a refinement, but not a change in the basic premise that human-created emissions are the major cause of current climate change.
"Does this mean a vegetarian diet is more climate friendly? Yes"
Prove it.
Someone please do the math regarding the costs associated with feeding a vegetarian society. Everyone wants to brag about how much we can reduce global warming by going vegan, but no one extrapolates the costs associated with growing the huge amount of human-grade fruits and vegetables that would be needed to make up the loss of meat. It takes a lot of sprouts to make up the caloric (not to mention necessary protein & fat) content available in a small piece of meat. The grains (corn, wheat, oats, etc.) that we feed to our herd animals are not typically of the quality that we humans like to consume, nor are they as difficult to grow. Since human grade crops require more effort, might we use even more "fossil" fuels and man-made fertilizers to farm for the masses when the ranch goes the way of the Dodo? And "locally grown, range-fed meats that are raised on certified organic land" can't meet the current demand. Of course, that can be fixed by forcing a change of lifestyle on us carnivores.
The approach of attacking ranchers and consumers is a bit disingenious when the techology to scavenge energy from ranch wastes already exists. Why not push harder for the use of those methane digesters Jeff mentioned rather than forcing vegetarianism on society?
Bobby B. -
Some places to start looking:
Environmental benefits of Vegetarianism. I'd caution to you to salt appropriately, but I suspect that your skepticism is already in full force.
Mike
It's a start and I am disappointed in wikipedia's one-sided presentation.
Would it be acceptable to ask, "Why do cows fart?" Could it be their vegetarian diet? Beans and grains are notorious for causing gas in the human bowel. Is the same mechanism at work in both species? Will we be pointing at mankind's flatulence as the primary cause of global warming when the cows are all gone and we become the wind breakers? No offense, but polite company would probably prefer that cattle fart on the ranch than any of us fart in an enclosed structure. Was not part of Kellogg's development of grain-based cereals an effort to increase intestinal output to cleanse the body? Will turning us into vegetarians increase our output to the point of making up for the cows' collective efforts?
As far as saving water and fuel, I can't say definitively one way or the other; and neither can those that make such claims. If cow methane is more damaging to Gaia than CO2, then why aren't we forcing ranchers to set the cow pies ablaze upon discharge to convert the methane directly into CO2; to minimize the impact on Mother Earth? Here is where Jeff's digesters could be helpful.
Vegetarianism may have its benefits, but is it the best diet for everyone?
http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/die...ios/
index.shtml
http://www.beyondveg.com/esmay-d...-d-bio-
1a.shtml
I can personally relate to the second link. Dr. Atkins' plan has been much maligned but his recommendations have worked for many of us. The new glycemic index plans are based upon his work, although those folks won't admit it.
Please note that I am having some fun here, but these are questions that deserve some consideration. I also have run out of salt.
Bobby, you raise some good points. Definitely we should be harvesting energy from cow pies, and I'm not giving up bacon any time soon, but if you want stats on why we should eat less meat, consider these well-documented examples from Lester Brown in Plan B 2.0.
We grow about 2 billion metric tons of food worldwide per year. We all agree that there is a cost in greenhouse emissions to grow this food, right? One way Brown breaks it down is like this.
North Americans eat 800 kgs of food per person per year, all but 100 kgs in the form of grain-fed livestock, poultry, and farmed fish. On that diet, the world's larder can feed 2.5 billion people. After that, we're out of food and 4.5 billion people starve to death.
Italians eat 400 kgs/person/year. They enjoy moderate amounts of meat, poultry, fish, and dairy products. The world can fill 5 billion tummies all year long on a mediterranean diet, and those folks will be healthier and live longer than the folks on the US diet. Still, about 2 billion people starve to death.
Indians eat almost 200 kgs/person/year. They're not all that healthy, because their diet is mostly starch, but no one will starve to death for 35-40 years, cause this diet will feed 10 billion people.
So the answer is yes, you do get more bang for your emissions buck when you eat lower on the food chain.
Are you sure about these numbers?
"North Americans eat 800 kgs of food per person per year, all but 100 kgs in the form of grain-fed livestock, poultry, and farmed fish."
That suggests that 87.5% of the North American diet is meat with only 12.5% reserved for starches, fruits and vegetables. That would be right in line with Dr. Atkins recommendations, which uses an inverted food pyramid. As such, I don't believe Brown's numbers accurately represent the average North American's diet. The amount of floor space required for the processed starches, canned goods and produce at the grocery store is much greater than the space reserved for meat in all its forms. That in itself suggests that we are more likely to grab a bag of chips than a bag of jerky. Or even opt for the sugar rush of a fresh banana as opposed to grilling a steak. Even if we take the fast-food-aholic, it is pretty clear that the combo meal is mostly starch (bread, fries & soft drink) with meat on the side. Sorry Grace, but Brown's numbers are suspect enough to make one question the validity of any of his conclusions.
We probably should we eat less meat. People forget that FDR qualified his "chicken in every pot" statement with an "on Sunday". The consumption of meat in the 1930's pales in comparison to today's intake. However, even with the upswing in heart disease (blamed on meat), the average life span in the US has increase by about 30 years. Go figure.
And the lofty ideals of ending starvation are just that - ideals. It wasn't too many years ago that the UN quit distributing free American peanut butter to the world's hungry. They defended this move by arguing that the peanut butter's fat content was too high to justify risking the health of those dying from starvation. I think that it has since been reevaluated, but at the time it sure made sense to me. Not!
Hey, Bob... Brown's numbers are very well-sourced... I'll see if I can find the context. Thanks for bringing him up, Grace -- the book is brilliant.
BTW, Bob -- Tod is sending out copies of the book to anyone who wants one. Interested? It's a pretty provocative read...
Who cares if it is well-sourced? Come on, who eats 90% meat and 10% everything else? Did I misread or misinterpret the quotation? I followed the Plan 2.0 link and it phrases it the same as Grace.
I will pass on the copy of the book. It's available online for free (like all the great works). Just reviewing the table of contents and perusing some of the text reveals its essentially filled with the same old leftist scare tactics. Peak oil and oil's demise, water shortages, global warming, rising seas, wars, population control (reduction), and fixing the problem by changing our ways. In the very first chapter, there is the heading "Learning from China", which I find interesting as it's the only large (and imposing) communist state left. Why is it that the answers to our problems always involve giving up freedom and adopting a socialist or communist system? I am beginning to wonder if all this environmetal stuff is nothing more than a red herring.
See, you making judgements from scanning the table of contents... that's dangerous, especially when you're talking to folks who've read the book. Here's how he explains that:
As consumption of livestock products, poultry, and farmed fish rises, grain use per person also rises. Of the roughly 800 kilograms of grain consumed per person each year in the United States, about 100 kilograms is eaten directly as bread, pasta, and breakfast cereals. But the bulk of the grain is consumed indirectly in the form of livestock, poultry, and farmed fish.
He's including in our total the amounts of grain fed to the livestock that we eat...
What you're leaving out of your characterization is the second half of Brown's book, which promotes a hopeful and practical way out of the problems detailed in the first half, and many of these solutions rely on the private sector doing the things it does best. The whole notion that this is some commie plot has no basis in the mainstream of environmental thought for several decades.
Thanks, Jeff, for clarifying where I muddied. What makes Brown's Plan B 2.0 a great work is that a) he does use good data, b) reports the data honestly without spin (not needed anyway), and c) lays out a viable plan.
The beauty of the plan is that it offers solutions that improve the quality of life for people the world over, including our own.
This man knows we can achieve peace and live a good life, sustainably, and he happily gives away his research and his conclusions.
What's not to love?
Thanks for providing the quotation and putting it into context, but Brown’s numbers are still worth questioning whether or not he provides adequate documentation. Let’s assume that every North American eats 1 lb of meat per day, which I believe to be a high estimate. Multiply by 365 days per year and you get 365 lb/yr. That’s pretty straight forward. Divide that by 2.2 lb/kg (to go metric) and you get 166 kg/yr per person. Divide the 700 kg/yr (indirect grain consumption) by the 166 kg/yr (meat consumption) and you get a ratio of 4.2:1. The beef industry’s own ratio is 2.6:1 and they have documentation too:
http://www.beef.org/
resoMeatProd...isWasteful.aspx
I recommend you follow the links on the above page for their side of the story.
So, now it becomes a question of who you are going to believe. Where do you put your faith? Is Brown a pure scientist with a plan, or is he an activist with a plot? Is the beef industry being honest, or are they just funding “deniers”? I know you guys believe that you can discredit every scientist that presents an opposing view by tagging him a “denier”, but doing so is intellectually dishonest and those of us on the right are beginning to understand the rhetoric.
To continue, my apologies for the communist plot reference, but the parallels can be striking. I am guilty of judging the book by its Table of Contents (at least I got past the cover), which is a bit rash. Nonetheless, I – like Grace – dream of Utopia, or at least the united earth scenario presented in “Star Trek: The Next Generation”. Who doesn’t? But I am also not naďve enough to follow “the man with the plan”, because the dynamic goes far beyond global warming and feeding the hungry. There are literally hundreds of examples of people and cultures that don’t want to have their situation “improved” by outsiders. The recent Russian retaking of their oil and gas fields after using foreigners to build the business is one example. The Middle East not being ready or willing to institute a democracy is another. Still, there’s no harm in dreaming.
I appreciate it. I get frustrated with that only because I've heard it so much (not just from you), and it ignores what's going on in terms of working with the private sector. Just a very recent example: Environmental Defense is opening an office in Bentonville, Arkansas, to consult with Wal-Mart full-time on its sustainability efforts... Government certainly has a role to play, but no one's suggesting the government take over the private sector... if anything, we tend to focus on what both do well. Unfortunately, the current relationship between business and government isn't based on those strengths (for the most part)...
The "denier" label can be thrown around a little too much, but I'd argue that most of us are digging into these folks arguments (as much as we can). When someone uses faulty logic or bogus facts to argue against climate change, I've got no problem assigning the "denier" label. As far as Lester Brown, his credentials are pretty stellar... I've also read several of his books, and see how methodical he is about making his case.
A point about world hunger:
In his message for World Food Day in 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, “Ending hunger and food insecurity is not simply a matter of growing more food. Recent studies have shown that four out of five malnourished children in the developing world live in countries that boast food surpluses.”
I find it ironic that he was "on-the-take" in the bogus Iraq Oil-For-Food Program at the time he said this.
Maybe Brown's credentials are stellar, but those "deniers" are also generally well-educated and well-documented individuals. I could be labeled a "denier" myself (though I prefer skeptic), because I just can't accept grandiose claims at face value.
Oh, I don't think anyone expects you to take such claims at face value... I've done an awful lot of reading and thinking myself (not to mention writing here, which is one way of getting myself to do the reading and thinking). The problem I have with the "deniers" isn't that their skeptical; it's that funded by organizations dedicated to muddying the waters. Certainly you'd agree that science with a pre-determined outcome is no science at all...
Commenting by HaloScan
