The Meat of the Problem via The Washington Post

An interesting article in mainstream media that talks about, if you care about the environment, you can do more good by eliminating meat from your diet. Worth reposting.


The Meat of the Problem

By Ezra Klein
Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The debate over climate change has reached a rarefied level of policy abstraction in recent months. Carbon tax or cap-and-trade? Upstream or downstream? Should we auction permits? Head-scratching is, at this point, permitted. But at base, these policies aim to do a simple thing, in a simple way: persuade us to undertake fewer activities that are bad for the atmosphere by making those activities more expensive. Driving an SUV would become pricier. So would heating a giant house with coal and buying electricity from an inefficient power plant. But there's one activity that's not on the list and should be: eating a hamburger.

If it's any consolation, I didn't like writing that sentence any more than you liked reading it. But the evidence is strong. It's not simply that meat is a contributor to global warming; it's that it is a huge contributor. Larger, by a significant margin, than the global transportation sector.

According to a 2006 United Nations report, livestock accounts for 18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Some of meat's contribution to climate change is intuitive. It's more energy efficient to grow grain and feed it to people than it is to grow grain and turn it into feed that we give to calves until they become adults that we then slaughter to feed to people. Some of the contribution is gross. "Manure lagoons," for instance, is the oddly evocative name for the acres of animal excrement that sit in the sun steaming nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. And some of it would make Bart Simpson chuckle. Cow gas -- interestingly, it's mainly burps, not farts -- is a real player.

But the result isn't funny at all: Two researchers at the University of Chicago estimated that switching to a vegan diet would have a bigger impact than trading in your gas guzzler for a Prius (PDF). A study out of Carnegie Mellon University found that the average American would do less for the planet by switching to a totally local diet than by going vegetarian one day a week. That prompted Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to recommend that people give up meat one day a week to take pressure off the atmosphere. The response was quick and vicious. "How convenient for him," was the inexplicable reply from a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. "He's a vegetarian."

The visceral reaction against anyone questioning our God-given right to bathe in bacon has been enough to scare many in the environmental movement away from this issue. The National Resources Defense Council has a long page of suggestions for how you, too, can "fight global warming." As you'd expect, "Drive Less" is in bold letters. There's also an endorsement for "high-mileage cars such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids." They advise that you weatherize your home, upgrade to more efficient appliances and even buy carbon offsets. The word "meat" is nowhere to be found.

That's not an oversight. Telling people to give up burgers doesn't poll well. Ben Adler, an urban policy writer, explored that in a December 2008 article for the American Prospect. He called environmental groups and asked them for their policy on meat consumption. "The Sierra Club isn't opposed to eating meat," was the clipped reply from a Sierra Club spokesman. "So that's sort of the long and short of it." And without pressure to address the costs of meat, politicians predictably are whiffing on the issue. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, for instance, does nothing to address the emissions from livestock.

The pity of it is that compared with cars or appliances or heating your house, eating pasta on a night when you'd otherwise have made fajitas is easy. It doesn't require a long commute on the bus or the disposable income to trade up to a Prius. It doesn't mean you have to scrounge for change to buy a carbon offset. In fact, it saves money. It's healthful. And it can be done immediately. A Montanan who drives 40 miles to work might not have the option to take public transportation. But he or she can probably pull off a veggie stew. A cash-strapped family might not be able buy a new dishwasher. But it might be able to replace meatballs with mac-and-cheese. That is the whole point behind the cheery PB&J Campaign, which reminds that "you can fight global warming by having a PB&J for lunch." Given that PB&J is delicious, it's not the world's most onerous commitment.

It's also worth saying that this is not a call for asceticism. It's not a value judgment on anyone's choices. Going vegetarian might not be as effective as going vegan, but it's better than eating meat, and eating meat less is better than eating meat more. It would be a whole lot better for the planet if everyone eliminated one meat meal a week than if a small core of die-hards developed perfectly virtuous diets.

I've not had the willpower to eliminate bacon from my life entirely, and so I eliminated it from breakfast and lunch, and when that grew easier, pulled back further to allow myself five meat-based meals a month. And believe me, I enjoy the hell out of those five meals. But if we're going to take global warming seriously, if we're going to make crude oil more expensive and tank-size cars less practical, there's no reason to ignore the impact of what we put on our plates.

Ezra Klein can be reached at kleine@washpost.com or through his blog at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ezraklein.

Questions

One of the questions you get (among many) when you are vegetarian or vegan is:

Don't you care about people? Why don't you spend more time worrying about people rather than animals.

Personally, I find it very weird to think that these two things are mutually exclusive. Many people I know who are animal activists care very much for people too. They care about the environment. They often do other volunteer work. They support anti-child labor laws.

But even if you don't actively campaign for a human cause, you are helping people by switching to a vegetable based diet.

There are tons of side benefits that eliminating animals and animal secretions from our diets. Insurance rates could be lowered because health would be better. Lifestyles would improve. The run off from animal processing plants would be reduced. The mental trauma from killing animals would not happen either.

Another huge impact is to the clear cutting of the rain forest for cattle. This impacts our air, potential medicines and even slave labor. Greenpeace just released thier report on the Amazon Cattle Footprint. Some highlights from the report are:

- Forests are a crucial carbon stock: forest ecosystems globally store about one-anda-half times as much carbon as is present in the atmosphere.25 Deforestation of tropical forests is responsible for up to approximately 20% of the global emissions of greenhouse gas, more than the world’s entire transport sector.

- The Amazon is estimated to store between 80-120 billion tonnes of carbon.27,28 If this is destroyed, roughly 50 times the annual greenhouse gas emissions from the US will be emitted.

- Cattle ranching in the Amazon has horrific social impacts, including the highest rates of slave labour in Brazil. 3005 rural workers, kept in slavery, were freed from cattle ranches in 2008. 99% of them had been held in the Legal Amazon.

- The region is home to more than 20 million people – including over 200,000 indigenous people, belonging to 180 different ethnic groups31. The rainforest is their home, providing them food and shelter to tools and medicines - it is also central to their spiritual life.

- Studies estimate that the Amazon supports 40,000 plant species; 427 mammals; 1,294 birds; 378 reptiles; 427 amphibians and 3,000 species of fish. Many other species are still unknown.

- The Amazon produces 20% of river water in the world. The forest influences the hydrologic cycle at local and regional scales, as humidity retained by the Amazon is carried by the wind to other parts of Brazil and South America. The reduction of the forest cover diminishes the amount of rainfall on the Southeast and Center of Brazil, affecting agriculture productivity.

- Belched methane from livestock constitutes one of the largest sources (roughly 30%) of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Agriculture as a whole contributes between 10-12% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

- The greenhouse gas emissions from beef are13 kilograms CO2-eq per kg36. This means eating a kilogram of beef represents roughly the same greenhouse emissions as flying 100 kilometers of a flight, per passenger.

It is definetly something to consider when you are choosing your food. The food we eat should be considered as carefully as any other choice, be it politics or money, because each bite we take as far reaching consequences. Consequences that impact more than just ourselves. The impact of each meal is shared by the world.