Vegetarianism and Global Warming

[Rob_D]

'The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions'

'Pachauri, a vegetarian from India, said the IPCC's recommendation is the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gasses. "In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity," Pachauri told a British newspaper, The Observer. "Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there," he said."

So if we all stopped eating beef and dairy products, and got rid of the 1.3 billion cows on this planet, we could have a significant impact on greenhouse gases. Even halving your consumption could be beneficial to climate change. It is much less inconvienent than trying to reduce your car mileage (one cow maybe equivalent to about 3,500 miles of driving each year), and it also has many other benefits to your health and the environment generally.

While methane is much worse than CO2 for climate impact, it doesn't last anywhere near as long in the atmosphere. So the impact of this change could be much quicker than CO2 reduction, and would help buy a little more time. Obviously it's only a small part of the problem and we need to reduce CO2 outputs as well. However, I can't see why this isn't being promoted by governments and not just the IPCC chair and certain vegetarian groups. Is it a case of governments not wanting to upset their farming industries? Is it too shocking for people to consider cutting down on their beef and dairy consumption?

[If you don't agree that anthropogenic processes that generate greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change then fine, but please don't hijack this thread by disputing that point here as there are already many other open threads on that topic.]

[Mercadante]

I think they live in terror of the Daily Mail and Jeremy Clarkson, and think supporting vegetarianism would make them look like hippies, and lose them votes in middle England, where the marginal seats are.

[stripee]

The meat industry sees veganism (especially) as a huge threat (slightly ridiculously as it is almost certainly never going to include the entire population), and does everything it can to make a fuss if it is promoted in any way. Recently they made an enormous fuss about a leaflet from the vegan society which was to be discussed by GCSE students as part of a debate for course work, and demanded its withdrawal.

Anyone who has the ability to reduce their meat intake and cares about the impact on global warming and who even cares about animals should think about doing this. Many people in developing countries are so poor that they have no choice.
It is not at all difficult to do.

[svenrufus]

Ah, now this is an interesting one. I have wrestled with this theme since I was first a veggie, at the age of 10, a frightening 28 years ago

Basically, since that time my reasons for being veggie have changed (I have never been vegan btw), from the initially daft not liking my sister getting all the attention for being a veggie, through animal rights, through making most efficient use of land (the idea that a given area of land supports stacks more people if it is used for soya instead of beef etc), and various other aspects in between and since.

My real problems began when as a veggie, I found myself as an ecologist advising people that livestock was the best way of managing their land for maximum biodiversity. It has got even more complicated since then when I started to consider the climate change aspects, which aren't quite as straightforward as set out in the original post.

The issue there is that yes, the reduction in livestock levels reduces Greenhouse gases, but in modern agriculture, most fertilisers are man made, using masses of energy, which has a huge climate change impact. The only readily available practical alternative is to add animal manure, to improve the quality of the soils. Therefore more animals needed to replace artificial fertilisers = more greenhouse gases produced in reducing greenhouse gases!

What to do? I suspect, but would love someone with more time and talent to figure it out accurately, that there is a need for a balance in our diets, reducing meat as already suggested by others, but recognising that there will likely always be a need for livestock - never mind the difficulties that we might have in persuading people to stop eating meat, the question is should we even if we could?

[Rob_D]

Good point about fertiliser Sven, be interesting how much that's been considered in this. You maybe right, but it's not easy to say.

- more than half the US nitrogen-based fertlizer goes on pasture according to Wikipedia. I don't know that much of the US corn & wheat industries use much manure at all? If they get rid of these animals, they could double the area of arable for the same amount of fertilizer which would produce far more food than they need. In fact they could probably reduce the arable farming, not even have to increase it. It's not true of most countries, but the US could probably reduce fertilizer use = more CO2 saved producing it. (am I wrong here?) I suspect it might apply somewhat to Britain too, but not to the same extent.

- there are renewable sources of fertiliser like algae.

- it is possible to use renewable energy like solar, hydro or wind power to produce the fertiliser - you don't need such a continuity of supply like for most power uses.

- only ruminents burp very much methane right? So we can still have chicken and pigs to produce manure. and eggs too ;-)

- reduced pressure on land use would mean
less need for intensive arable = much reduced fertiliser demand
much longer crop rotations = less need for fertiliser
greater areas for carbon-sinking forests

- cattle and other ruminents are also significant factor in desertification, which is also contributing to global climate change isn't it?

- the western developed countries are the worst culprits in GW by far. Most inhabitants of these countries, including Britain, many really could do with a reduction in calories! In those countries where people don't get enough, they don't often get much meat in any case. Of those 1.3 billion cows, most are consumed by those who don't need it!

Living in a predominantly intensive arable area, I really do accept your point about biodiversity though. I much prefer mixed farmland for wildlife. Perhaps non-intensive arable is not so bad though - we just have so little left.

[svenrufus]

It is all complicated further by the notion that a rising global population needs more food. As it stands, we are facing a scenario where the human race may plateau at around 9-10 billion. Many of those billions are currently underfed, and most of the increase in population will occur in those same parts of the world. Couple this with the fact that as undeveloped countries develop, their calorie intake is not all that rises, so does their meat consumption.

I heard an estimate yesterday (which I can't reference) that in order to feed a population of 9 billion, we will need global food production to double. We have tripled it in the last 50 years, so it is possible to conceive that happens, but at what cost - how much more land, how much more energy used to fertilise etc. Also consider that with the agricultural revolution, that tripling of food supply in such a short time has been off the back of artificial fertilisers and intensive agriculture. While reducing meat consumption will help, especially as so much grain is fed to livestock in the West, we still have to make up the additional fertiliser requirements, with massive energy costs and climate change implications.

Furthermore, there are signs that the most intensively farmed areas over the last 50 years are beginning to lose productivity due to loss of soils (resulting from lack of organic content following years of chemical additives) . On top of that, the areas already farmed are by and large the most productive ones, so if we take more land, it gets harder to double output again. therefore even more fertilisers needed.

There is a common feeling that organic farming can't feed the world, and frankly I just don't know if that is true, but it may well be. There are too many conflicting demands that are imperative for future human survival to be confident that there will continue to be space for the natural world alongside 9 billion people. There is no real public debate about population control or limits, and there needs to be. I do sometimes feel overwhelmed by gloom thinking about it.

However, there are some areas where - apart from the topic of this thread, reducing meat consumption - certain steps could make a big difference to our ability to feed the world while reducing climate change impact. For example...
1 - stop smoking (globally). One estimate I have seen says that land currently used for tobacco could feed 10-20 million people. Then there is an enormous amount of wood used in drying tobacco, so that's more productive land made available again.
2 - stop buying clothes ( ). Cotton, not only for the land used, (I can't find the figures, or how many people this would feed), but also for the use of chemicals is one of the most pernicious and unecessary plants we grow. I think I'm right in saying that 20% of all pesticides used globally are applied to cotton. So, wear last years fashion, and save the world!
3 - evict your pets! How much food is given to redundant 'companion animals'? Admittedly a developed world issue, but just one more aspect of our profligate over-consumption.

I could go on but I'll stop there. To summarise in a few words - It's complicated, and not altogether hopeful.

[pressld2]

Your last point is a very interesting one Sven. Given that human beings evolved as omnivores, meat is only a relatively small part of the diet for even the most diehard non-vegetarians amongst us. I myself have meat with every main meal of the day but it usually only makes up 20-30% of the meal (and under 20% of my total diet). Cats and dogs on the other hand are exclusively carnivorous (I'm including fish as "meat" in this context as it is animal flesh). I'd be interested to know what percentage of the total meat consumed in the developed world is eaten by pets. I bet most of the larger dogs eat more meat than I do!

The latest stats I can find (after a very quick search) are from 2002 when there were 13.6 million cats and dogs in the UK so it's not insignificant!

Dave P.

[oitsnik]

What do you do with the 1.8 billion cows,oh not forgetting pigs,sheep,chickens etc...Not trying to be smart its just a thought regards Nick.

[Rob_D]

Are you serious? I keep hearing this from meat-eaters and I always assume they are joking, but perhaps they're not.

It might take a few years for meat demand to reduce to zero (to put it mildly). Domestic animals are normally only allowed to breed if there's demand, so if you cut demand then farmers would very quickly stop breeding any. The young animals would soon be consumed by the "last meat-eaters". Old breeding stock would probably be slaughtered as they are today when they are no longer wanted. I guess those go to pet food etc.

AFAIK pigs and chickens don't burp as much methane as Cows, Sheep and Goats, so they'd be OK.

I thought dogs can be quite healthy on a vegetarian diet? If not, perhaps there's another solution to getting rid of the cats, but maybe I am getting abit out of order with that idea.....

[Jez]

I saw a news article some time ago, of cows being reared for fueling trains