Cut in meat diet will mean lesser GHG emission
Nobel laureate and chief of IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has strongly suggested that the world should curb its consumption of meat to counter global warming. The UN’s food agency too has estimated that direct greenhouse gas emission at 18% from meat production is more than transport.
People should consider eating less meat as a way of combating global warming, says the UN's top climate scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
- R.K. Pachauri/ Photo credit: BBC
UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.
But a spokeswoman for the UK's National Farmers' Union (NFU) said methane emissions from farms were declining.
Dr Pachauri has just been re-appointed for a second six-year term as chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC, the body that collates and evaluates climate data for the world's governments.
FAO estimates
"The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has estimated that direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions."
"So I want to highlight the fact that among options for mitigating climate change, changing diets is something one should consider."
The FAO figure of 18% includes greenhouse gases released in every part of the meat production cycle - clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep.
The contributions of the three main greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide - are roughly equivalent, the FAO calculates.
Transport, by contrast, accounts for just 13% of humankind's greenhouse gas footprint, according to the IPCC.
Climate of persuasion
CIWF's ambassador Joyce D'Silva said that thinking about climate change could spur people to change their habits.
"The climate change angle could be quite persuasive," she said.
"Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realise that changing what's on their plate could have an even bigger effect."
Side benefits
There are various possibilities for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with farming animals.
They range from scientific approaches, such as genetically engineering strains of cattle that produce less methane flatus, to reducing the amount of transport involved through eating locally reared animals.
According to Pachauri, diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems – including habitat destruction – associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said.
Pachauri sees it more as an issue of personal choice. “I’m not in favour of mandating things like this, but if there were a (global) price on carbon, perhaps the price of meat would go up and people would eat less,” he said.
“If we’re honest, less meat is also good for the health, and would at the same time reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.”
FAO estimates that the livestock sector occupies 30% of ice-free land on the planet. Extensive grazing also takes a toll on arable land and scarce water resources.
However, the FAO report does not advocate a meat-free diet but suggests technological solutions and changes in farm policies such as better soil conservation methods, feeding methods that reduce livestock’s gas emissions, and improved irrigation and manure management systems.
The report also notes the economic importance of the livestock sector to global populations; work with livestock contributes 40% of global agriculture GDP and employs 1.3 billion people worldwide.
Contrasting views
A 2007 report by the Food Climate Research Network at Surrey University claimed that livestock generated 8% of the UK’s emissions but eating some meat was good for the planet because some habitats benefited from grazing.
It also said vegetarian diets that included lots of milk, butter and cheese would probably not noticeably reduce emissions because dairy cows are a major source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas released through flatulence.
London Mayor Boris Johnson, who argues among other things that: “It’s not eating meat that does the damage. It’s the huge and remorselessly growing number of people who want to eat it.”
