There was some skepticism expressed about the sign at Veggie Pride that stated, "Meat consumption is the major cause of global warming." It’s not hilarious, it’s absolutely true. This fact has been proved in study after study and should be a major concern for everyone. I could quote scary facts and rhetoric from myriad environmental groups, but I thought you’d be more convinced if I prove it through articles in impartial magazines.Two key quotes from a Time magazine article from September 2008 “Meat: Making Global Warming Worse:”
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.
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.
And from a February 2009 Scientific American story, “How Meat Contributes to Global Warming:”
The High (Greenhouse Gas) Cost of MeatThe greenhouse gas emissions from producing various foods can be appreciated by comparing them with the emissions from a gasoline-powered passenger car that gets 27 miles per gallon. The estimated emissions from food production incorporate the assumption that 1,000 kilograms of carbon per hectare per year (about 2,700 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre per year) would have been absorbed by forests or other vegetation if the land had not been cleared for annual food crops or fodder. Greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, for instance—trap solar energy and warm the earth’s surface. Quantities of greenhouse gases are often expressed as the amount of CO2 that would have the same global-warming potential: their CO2 equivalent.
Worldwide meat production (beef, chicken and pork) emits more atmospheric greenhouse gases than do all forms of global transportation or industrial processes. On the basis of data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research, the author estimates that current levels of meat production add nearly 6.5 billion tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases every year to the atmosphere: some 18 percent of the worldwide annual production of 36 billion tons. Only energy production generates more greenhouse gases than does raising livestock for food.
Prime Cuts: How Beef Production Leads to Greenhouse GasesThe largest fraction of the greenhouse effect from beef production comes from the loss of CO2-absorbing trees, grasses and other year-round plant cover on land where the feed crops are grown and harvested. Second most important is the methane given off by animal waste and by the animals themselves as they digest their food. This analysis of the U.S. feedlot beef production system was done by ecological economist Susan Subak, then at the University of East Anglia in England.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of information on this. Google “meat production climate change” or any such terms, and you’ll learn a lot. The environmental harm is one big reason I’ve gone vegan, so don’t scoff before you’ve learned the details.
Photo above and satellite image below of Harris Ranch, a gigantic cattle factory farming operation I used to drive past all the time in Central California. Its smell alone should make everyone driving down I-5 into a vegetarian. Methane city.

3 comments:
Who's scoffing?
Anyhow, since you're going hard on this subject, can you post about agri-business vs. small farmers? (are you taking requests?) Is there a way to environmentally produce meat?
All of those statistics about percentages of human caused greenhouse gasses leave out something huge and important. None of that mentions all of the non-human parts of nature.
There is a whole lot more affecting the temperature of the planet than just what we do. If the sign said "Meat consumption causes the second most greenhouse gasses of any human activity.", then that would be fine. That is not the same as saying "Meat consumption is the major cause of global warming."
That is why I laughed. There is a huge assumption, oversimplification, and break in logic there.
Long term earth weather is much more complex than that and includes many more variables than just us.
Natural ocean currents also have a huge effect. According to a recent report by NOAA climate scientists,
"All regions are not participating (in warming) at the same rate as the global temperature is changing," Hoerling said. Some in the West are warming rapidly, and some not at all (the southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada).
Oceans carry vast amounts of heat, releasing heat and moisture into air which then travels inland. The re-analysis focused on this fact.
Some of the changes in North America's warming trend of the past half-century has been due to shifting ocean currents, the NOAA team found. It estimates the "natural" change is substantial and could be close to half of all warming in North America (though it's still less than the amount caused by greenhouse gases.)
The study found:
- The 56-year trend of annual surface temperature showed a rise of 0.9 C, plus or minus a tenth of a degree.
- The greatest warming - up two degrees - has taken place across Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, and Alaska. Quebec and Atlantic Canada stayed cool.
That East-West difference "is not what we would expect from the effect of greenhouse gases alone," Hoerling said. Greenhouses gases should have influenced both. However, NOAA believes Western Canada is receiving more warm air due to shifting patterns of the Pacific Ocean currents.
- Variations within North America "are very likely influenced by variations in global sea surface temperatures through the effects of the latter on atmospheric circulation, especially during winter." The term "very likely" is defined as a chance of 90 per cent or more.
- It's "unlikely" that patterns of drought have changed due to global warming caused by human pollution. Rather, natural shifts in ocean currents are probably to blame. For instance, the current drought in Texas and the southwest are due to La Nina, a Pacific Ocean current that starts and stops periodically (like El Nino), and cuts off the movement of moist air inland."
There are also the effects of changes in the sun. Solar output is not constant and "space weather" has a huge effect on the climate of earth.
Here is an interesting piece by "Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute."
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
"Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.
The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.
Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.
This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.
It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?
Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.
The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions—a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect.
Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary. The ocean is the greatest carbon dioxide depository, with concentrations 60-90 times larger than in the atmosphere. When the ocean’s surface warms up, it produces the “champagne effect.” Compare a foamy spurt out of a warm bottle with wine pouring smoothly when served properly cold.
Likewise, warm ocean water exudes greater amounts of carbonic acid, which evaporates to add to industrial pollution—a factor we cannot deny. However, man-caused pollution is negligible here. If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it will not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change will be too small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles.
Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air.
Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect.
Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.
Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster. Of all the planets in the solar system, only Earth has an atmosphere beneficial to life. There are many factors that account for development of life on Earth: Sun is a calm star, Earth is located an optimum distance from it, it has the Moon as a massive satellite, and many others. Earth owes its friendly climate also to dynamic feedback between biotic and atmospheric evolution.
The principal among those diverse links is Earth’s reflective power, which regulates its temperature. A warm period, as the present, increases oceanic evaporation to produce a great amount of clouds, which filter solar radiation and so bring heat down. Things take the contrary turn in a cold period.
What can’t be cured must be endured. It is wise to accept the natural course of things. We have no reason to panic about allegations that ice in the Arctic Ocean is thawing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether. As it really is, scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields are growing. Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow.
Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that. "
I am not saying greenhouse gasses, whether caused by humans or natural processes, do not cause any warming. I am saying that, like many things in this world, people like to oversimplify things.
Many want to think they have all the answers and that you can sum up something complex in a simple statement or idea. When dealing with such vastly complex interactions as those involved in the temperature of a planet, especially one like ours with vast oceans, a thick atmosphere, living organisms, and of course our ever changing parent star, this is simply intellectually dishonest.
There is more to learn and I love every minute of the discovery process. Telling the public, OK, we have all the answers we need now, when we don't, is a hindrance to real science and informed and reasonable decision making.
-------------------
*******************
Hooray for your site being a fun place to discuss things and enjoy thinking. I like this very much.
BTW, I am still proud of you for your vegan choice. I know a lot of people will make fun of you for it. I will not. I am proud of you.
The animal cruelty and outdoor ranching aspects of eating meat will soon be a thing of the past anyway. Meat will be produced in the future without any animals ever roaming a pasture, sitting in a cage, or being slaughtered to produce it. People will eventually look back on this era as a barbaric time when we still got meat directly from living organisms.
We can already grow meat in the lab, it is just not affordable yet. This science is already here and progressing quickly.
Lab-Grown Meat a Reality, But Who Will Eat It?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90235492
In vitro meat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat
Paper Says Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab on Industrial Scale
http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1098
The Conscience of a Carnivore
It's time to stop killing meat and start growing it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2142547/
PETA Offers $1M Prize for Lab-Grown Meat
Experts Debate Whether Consumers Will Bite on 'Cultured' Meat
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4704447&page=1
Post a Comment