No green way to get meat

[Guest guest]

Sep. 10, 2008

Meat: Making Global Warming Worse

By Bryan Walsh

 

Need another reason to feel guilty about feeding your children that

Happy Meal ˜ aside from the fat, the calories and that voice in your

head asking why you can't be bothered to actually cook a well-

balanced meal now and then? Rajendra Pachauri would like to offer

you one. The head of the U.N.'s Nobel Prize^winning

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Pachauri on Monday urged

people around the world to cut back on meat in order to combat

climate change. " Give up meat for one day [per week] at least

initially, and decrease it from there, " Pachauri told Britain's

Observer newspaper. " 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. " So, that addiction

to pork and beef isn't just clogging your arteries; it's flame-

broiling the earth, too.

 

By the numbers, Pachauri is absolutely right. In a 2006 report, the

U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide

livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas

emissions ˜ by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and

boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. Much of

livestock's contribution to global warming come from deforestation,

as the growing demand for meat results in trees being cut down to

make space for pasture or farmland to grow animal feed. Livestock

takes up a lot of space ˜ nearly one-third of the earth's entire

landmass. In Latin America, the FAO estimates that some 70% of

former forest cover has been converted for grazing. Lost forest

cover heats the planet, because trees absorb CO2 while they're alive

˜ and when they're burned or cut down, the greenhouse gas is

released back into the atmosphere.

 

Then there's manure ˜ all that animal waste generates nitrous oxide,

a greenhouse gas that has 296 times the warming effect of CO2. And of

course, there is cow flatulence: as cattle digest grass or grain,

they produce methane gas, of which they expel up to 200 L a day.

Given that there are 100 million cattle in the U.S. alone, and that

methane has 23 times the warming impact of CO2, the gas adds up.

 

The worrisome news is that as the world economy grows, so does global

meat consumption. The average person in the industrialized world eats

more than 176 lb. of meat annually, compared with around 66 lb.

consumed by the average resident of the developing world. As

developing nations get richer, one of the first things citizens spend

their extra income on is a more meat-rich diet. Whereas pork would

once have been a rare luxury in China, today even the relatively poor

in the country's cities can afford a little meat at almost every meal

˜ so much so that pork imports to China rose more than 900% through

the first four months of the year. In 2008, global meat production is

expected to top 280 million tons, and that figure could nearly double

by 2050.

 

Producing all that meat will do more than just warm the world; it

will also raise pressure on land resources. The FAO estimates that

about 20% of the planet's pastureland has been degraded by grazing

animals, and increased demand for meat means increased demand for

animal feed ˜much of the world's grain production is fed to animals

rather than to humans. (The global spike in grain prices over the

past year is in large part due to the impact on grain supplies of

the growing demand for meat.) The expanded production of meat has

been facilitated by industrial feedlots, which bleed antibiotics and

other noxious chemicals. And of course, the human health impact of

too much meat can be seen in everything from bloated waistlines in

America to rising rates of cardiovascular disease in developing

nations, where heart attacks were once as rare as a T-bone steak.

 

So is Pachauri right that going vegetarian can save the planet? (At

least the 68-year-old Indian economist practices what he preaches.)

It's true that giving up that average 176 lb. of meat a year is one

of the greenest lifestyle changes you can make as an individual. You

can drive a more fuel-efficient car, or install compact fluorescent

lightbulbs, or improve your insulation, but unless you intend to hunt

wild buffalo and boar, there's really no green way to get meat ˜

although organic, locally farmed beef or chicken is better than its

factory-raised equivalents. The geophysicists Gidon Eschel and Pamela

Martin have estimated that if every American reduced meat consumption

by just 20%, the greenhouse gas savings would be the same as if we

all switched from a normal sedan to a hybrid Prius.

 

Still, Pachauri is just slightly off. It's a tactical mistake, first

of all, to focus global warming action on personal restrictions. The

developed world could cut back hugely on its meat consumption, but

those gains would be largely swallowed up ˜ sorry ˜ by the developing

world, which isn't likely to give up its newly acquired taste for

cheeseburgers and pork. The same goes for energy use, or travel. It's

great for magazines to come up with

<http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/environment/>51 ways you can

save the environment, but relying on individuals to voluntarily

change their behavior is nowhere near as effective as political

change aimed at speeding the transition to an economy far less

carbon-intensive than our current one. So, by all means cut back on

the burgers ˜ I recommend

<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810336,00.html>a

nice deep-fried scorpion ˜ but remember that your choices from the

takeout menu will matter less than the choices made by those who

inherit the White House next January.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839995,00.html