For those of you who aren’t FIGers…

Meat: Making Global Warming Worse

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 51 ways to 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 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. 

*I personally would NOT recommend this.

I say, save Jen’s kind!  No more flatulence-pollution!  😀  Haha, I’m so funny…