Welcome to climatedeal.org

Question

2

Raising livestock for meat production has been shown to be a large contributor to GHG emissions. This article cites up to 18% when considering the entire commodity chain: http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

From the methane produced by cows to the ammonia in the manure and excreta of livestock to the CO2 emissions of the vehicles that transport them, Animals used for meat have a large carbon footprint!

I'm wondering how many people are willing to eat less meat to help battle climate change, and what tactics they are looking to use.

Are you learning to quick new foods? Are you planning on being partially vegetarian? Are you going fully vegetarian? Are you aiming to cut out all animal products and go vegan? What resources are you using to help you along the way?

And if you're not going to make a dietary change, what are your reasons?

edited Jan 13 at 22:53

Noel♦♦
119●8

asked Jan 13 at 17:30

Chris F.
400●7

	Is not this more a poll than a question proper? – Jan Kunnas Jan 13 at 18:16
	I wasn't aware that a poll could be fashioned using Stack Exchange products. Even still, I wanted to post some of the information in the body of the question. – Chris F. Jan 22 at 16:02
	down voted. This is not a question - it's advocacy of vegetarianism, phrased as a question. – Theo Jones Jan 23 at 9:11
	I am not vegetarian, nor am I "advocating" it. I believe the question to be valid with respect to climate change. I do not appreciate the deletion of your answer where we discussed evolution. Down voting is one thing, but deleting traces of conversation prior to down voting seems inappropriate to me. – Chris F. Jan 23 at 19:53
	It has indeed been answered as a question, so I was wrong, it is a question proper phrased as a poll. ;-) – Jan Kunnas Jan 25 at 14:03

show 1 more comment

MAI · Accepted Answer · 2010-01-23 22:11:57Z UTC

If we consider that the livestock sector contributes in 18% more GHG emissions (CO2 equivalent) than transport, then we could follow Chris' example and reduce our meat consumption as well as our driving or flying. It's a matter of being aware of the problem and start choosing the solution that best suits us, once we get used to it, then we can start with something else. I try not to buy meat and only eat it when it's the only option where I am, in that way, I like being flexible about it, and so, I reduce my GHG emissions in different ways: walk more, use public transport at least once a week instead of driving, bike for fun instead of watching TV, use the minimun warm water (and water which requires energy to be distributed and heated), buy less useless stuff, less packing, less waste, etc... An important thing to think about is to buy local and try to take advantage of the food and vegetables we can find were we live... it requires so much energy to transport food from one country to another, as well as packing to protect it better, cooling sometimes, so, when buying local, you also contribute to the economy surrounding you and might save you good money!

AnaDP · Answer 2 · 2010-01-13 23:02:37Z UTC

Eating more vegetables is not only great for your health but also good for the planet too! UN’s top climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri states that “People should consider eating less meat as a way of combating global warming. UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.”

Meat Free Monday, for example, is an environmental campaign to raise awareness of the climate-changing impact of meat production and consumption. Many people are unaware that livestock production is responsible for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions – that’s more than the entire transport sector.

So you don't need to stop eating meat, maybe you should join these kind of iniciatives =)

http://www.supportmfm.org/helptheplanet/index.cfm alt text

Arjan · Answer 3 · 2010-01-14 01:56:04Z UTC

1

I'm a vegetarian, but some things I eat (like some kinds of cheese) are said to have a higher impact on the environment than some kinds of meat (like free-range chicken). Should I hence ask myself if I am willing to eat more meat^†?

^{^† No, but less cheese might work.}

answered Jan 14 at 1:56

Arjan
105●1●1●5

I think that one is a really tough sell and logically difficult to assess. Cutting back on dairy products is definitely another way to reduce your GHG impact. Meanwhile, are dairy cows a better investment since they are slaughtered for meat in the end anyway? They allow for recurring revenue while they're alive, right? So perhaps eating more dairy would cause farmers to keep animals alive longer, which pumps fewer cows through the system in a fixed period of time, which would likely have a GHG reduction effect, no? – Chris F. Jan 14 at 16:09

Yee Chow · Answer 4 · 2010-01-14 03:00:07Z UTC

1

My answer is: Yes i am willing and have already done so. However, I think this is one of the least campaigned areas of climate change, for whatever reason. There's been a lot of attention focused on energy efficiency in homes (changing light bulbs, boiling less water), or flying less, walk more, drive less, but eating less meat? I can't recall seeing such a campaign? and wonder why?

answered Jan 14 at 3:00

Yee Chow
411●6

1

Excellent point. Flying less definitely has a HUGE impact, but driving less and changing your light bulbs will collectively have less impact than eating less meat. I haven't done the calculations, so maybe I'm wrong, but I do believe that there the world finds it easier to stigmatize the oil industry than the meat industry. Full disclosure: I am not vegetarian, but am aggressively working on becoming fully vegetarian 4 days of every week, with no seafood consumption (ever), and reduced dairy consumption (no milk, less cheese, less yogurt). I also buy organic & local as often as possible. – Chris F. Jan 14 at 16:13

DiegoEC · Answer 5 · 2010-01-28 18:44:31Z UTC

Ofcourse I will decrease my meat consumption in order to reduce CO2 emissions, altough it will be interesting to explore diferent aproaches meaby in stead of decreasing the consumption we could give a better use to the metane emissions, there are many ways of produsing energy with this gas for example, energy suficient farms would be a great idea.

Juan Carlos Arredondo · Answer 6 · 2010-02-09 02:44:57Z UTC

It would be better if you drove several miles less every week or month, and increased your walkings and bike rides.

Yes, emissiones from livestock are important but those from transport are the largest and the ones with highest growth rate.

If you want to eat less meat, go ahead. Do not patronise vegetarianism or try to convince others. That is a personal choice, just as is turning your lights or TV off when not in use. Instead, you could walk to the supermarket, buy your groceries and return home walking with your food in your backpack. That contributes a lot more as individual-level mitigation effort.

Reducing emissions is not a single formula that works for everyone. It is a matter of having a lifestyle that requires less fossil fuels (overall).

Theo Jones · Answer 7 · 2010-03-24 06:05:02Z UTC

It now appears that this report is a flawed, lopsided analysis.

The 2006 report - Livestock's Long Shadow, published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - reached the figure by totting up all greenhouse-gas emissions associated with meat production from farm to table, including fertiliser production, land clearance, methane emissions from the animals' digestion, and vehicle use on farms.

Dr Mitloehner pointed out that The authors had not calculated transport emissions in the same way, instead just using the IPCC's figure, which only included fossil fuel burning.

"This lopsided 'analysis' is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said.

One of the authors of Livestock's Long Shadow, FAO livestock policy officer Pierre Gerber, told BBC News he accepted Dr Mitlohner's criticism.

"I must say honestly that he has a point - we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport," he said

"In developed societies such as the US - where transport emissions account for about 26% of the national total, compared with 3% for pig- and cattle-rearing - meat is the wrong target in efforts to reduce carbon emissions."

BBC report, 24th March 2010

Xiao Cai · Answer 8 · 2010-05-19 16:19:15Z UTC

What's important isn't just whether or not we eat meat but where the meat comes from and how it's produced.

If it were the case that the only meat available was from concentration-camp-style cattle ranches where the cattle are fed with soy beans grown from land reclaimed from rainforests then I will be willing to make a lifestyle change.

But there are alternatives. Buying organic, locally produced meat saves on food miles and chemical agents seeping into the ecosystem. Of course, there is a premium to be paid for these, so the question is: Am I prepared to pay a bit extra to reduce my carbon footprint? And the answer is, where affordable, a resounding yes.

Are you willing to eat less meat to lower your contribution to climate change?

8 Answers