Naturalpath

  • NaturalPath Media
  • Member Directory
  • Our Publishers
  • Green Directory
  • Home
  • Sustainability
  • Eco-Tech
  • Style/Shopping
  • Healthy Living
  • NaturalPath Media

Eat Less Meat to Cut Global Warming

eat less meat to cut global warming

Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, raising cattle or driving cars?

Surprise - it's the cows. Yes, it's true that our cow-centric American diet contributes significantly to global warming. And cutting even some meat from our daily diets could have a greater effect than buying that eco-friendly car you've been oogling.

According to a recent report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

"There is a strong link between human diet and methane emissions from livestock." Cow farms produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane per year, the two major greenhouse gases that together account for more than 90 percent of U.S. greenhouse emissions, substantially contributing to "global scorching."

Meat production not only consumes a huge swath of agricultural land, but the by-product of animal raising - nitrous oxide and methane gases -- are no laughing matter as they contribute much more to the greenhouse effect than CO2.

This conclusion was supported by impressive data in a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report issued last year: Livestock’s Long Shadow.

In more simplified terms, if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. That's what Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago calculated recently. (Source: See NY Times Article, Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler.)

Not only does a plant-based diet lead to enormous energy savings, but it's a heathier diet as well. The World Cancer Research Fund recently said eating red meat even in small quantities can increase the risk of several cancers.

But what about the protein you ask? Well, an acre of grain yields five times as much protein as an acre used for meat production. And many nutrition experts think Americans are over-consuming protein -- now almost 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year. That's an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago. On average, Americans each consume about 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance.

Changing this lifestyle habit is going to be a tough one. But if we are serious about global climate change this issue needs to be addressed head-on and not only by vegetarian and animal rights advocates such as The Vegetarian Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Sources and Links:

Livestock's Long Shadow: Dowload Full Report Here

Ode Magazine Article: Meat is Methane

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler, NY Times

vegsoc.org/environment

soilassociation.org

World Cancer Research Fund Cancer Prevention Recommendations

 

  • Sustainability
  • global warming
  • greenhouse
  • livestock
  • meat
  • methane
  • Naturalpath.com Staff Writer
  • Login or register to post comments

Comments

March 12, 2008 - 3:25pm — Mary

Quantity is Important

My family eats meat, but we have drastically reduced the amount of meat we consume with each meal. We now have a small portion of meat or fish -- and make sure it's organic, grass or organic fed -- and combine it with lots of vegetables and grains. We also alternate in other protein sources like beans and lentils. It's great to be an omnivore, but important to keep in mind the environmental consequences of what we're eating....
  • Login or register to post comments
February 5, 2008 - 11:20am — Organic Mom

One less burger, please

Having another reason to lay off the beef is great. With Health, hormones, cloning and mad cow disease the list for why not to eat beef just gets longer. I do appreciate that you are not pushing all are none. We don't have to be extreme to make a difference. http://www.cafepress.com/delladesigns http://www.badart.etsy.com http://www.badartbaby.etsy.com
  • Login or register to post comments
February 4, 2008 - 7:35pm — David

good points and no beef...

Thank you for your comment. Fair points. I agree we should have suggested a plant centric, rather than an exclusively plant based diet, as it is much more realistic that Americans should consider reducing (not eliminating) their meat consumption to benefit both personal health and the environment. There is evidence that overconsumption of meat is associated with increased cancer risk (see, Washington Post article below as just one example), but you're right to comment that our argument is simplistic in its reduction and our sources are limited for the conclusion. I will suggest these revisions to our staff writer. Still, with some revision, I don't think the article is too far off base. As Michael Pollan more eloquently advocates in his most recent book, In Defense of Food: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." http://www.michaelpollan.com/indefense.php http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121100737.html thanks again for the points.
  • Login or register to post comments
January 31, 2008 - 10:57pm — drkreisberg

Yes but...

I think you are right on with posting this story about carbon emissions and the beef industry. As the NY Time article says, if we reduce our meat consumption %20 we can have a huge impact on the environment. As well, there is lots of evidence that eating less animal is good for your health. However, to suggest in this article that eating beef at all increases the risk of cancer is mixing up apples with oranges. There is plenty of evidence that suggest lots of things we eat increases the risk of cancer. To simply site one perspective, that of the World Cancer Reseach Fund is a rather simplistic perspective and in no way furthers the arguement. There is plenty of evidence that free range beef is good for people as well, there is plenty of evidence that eating too much soy has negative health consequences. I think the authors intent of the article in the NY Times is to suggest that the overconsumption of meat in the US has several different consequences and that we can make our food choices wisely, with moderation. It sounds to me like the naturalpath staff writer is suggesting that we all should be vegetarians, which again, is rather a simplistic arguement given all the complex circumstances involved with our food choices. Joel Kreisberg Environmentally Responsible Healthcare in Action www.teleosis.org
  • Login or register to post comments
Sign in | Register

NaturalPath Media's Blog

  • Most Executives Would Cut Pay to Support Green
  • Companies seeking innovative online green marketing can benefit from Yahoo!’s success & strategies
  • Marketers are Seeing Green
  • Soaring energy prices give green products a competitive advantage
  • Report shows growing importance of sustainability in the food, beverage, & consumer products industry

Latest Articles

  • New Flavors of Organic EnviorKidz Cereals by Nature’s Path
  • The Daily Five: Friday, 18 July, 2008
  • Mr. Gore, how do you feel about 90 percent?
more

Recent Comments

  • Beyonce herself said...
  • Only 50 years... and of major delusion!
  • I have the worst allergies
  • I had gotten food poisoning
  • function pr_swfver(){ var
  • go slow with the cleanse
  • I have yet to try cleansing,
more

Navigation

  • Community Forums
  • Feedback
  • Invite your friends and colleagues
  • create content
About NaturalPath | TOS | Disclaimer | Privacy and Policies | Help | Advertise (NaturalPath Media)
Copyright 2008 Lark Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Naturalpath.com does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information.