Carnivorous Consumption and Climate Change

Carnivorous Consumption and Climate Change

Last week, The New York Times reported on how Sweden is experimenting with a labeling system for grocery store and restaurant items that indicates the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of certain foods, ranging from hamburgers to pasta (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/world/europe/23degrees.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=sweden,%20climate&st=cse). The Swedish National Food Administration is trying to encourage people to think more deeply about how nutrition and the environment are inextricably linked, and has, for example, recommended that people limit their fish intake because Europe’s stocks are dangerously depleted, and that individuals eat less red meat, due to the heavy greenhouse gas emissions associated with raising cattle.

I recently attended a very informative panel discussion here in NYC called “Food and Climate Change: The Meat of the Matter,” with speakers from Kind Green Planet, Brighter Green, and Farm Sanctuary. The crux of the presentation echoed several of the serious concerns at the heart of the Swedish effort – mainly that factory farming is the number one contributor of greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Fifty-six billion (yes, 56 billion with a “B”) farm animals are slaughtered worldwide each year and, according to a 2006 United Nations report, the livestock sector contributes a staggering 18% of global greenhouse gases, which includes emissions from burning fossil fuels to operate the processing plants and to transport the meat, methane from the animals’ digestive processes, and nitrous oxide from manure. (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment). To help put things in perspective, the global transportation sector (cars, trucks, planes, trains, etc.) contributes 14% of worldwide greenhouse gases. To make matters worse, the livestock business is responsible for other critical stresses on the environment, including land degradation (from overgrazing, erosion, etc.), desertification, water scarcity, and water pollution.

While the Swedish food guidelines, which are being circulated across the European Union for comment, have been met with mixed reviews by its citizens and attacked by players in the meat and fishing industries, the sales of climate-friendly items have risen 20 percent in Sweden, and some business leaders have voluntarily hired consultants to calculate their carbon footprints. Some experts say that if the guidelines were faithfully followed, Sweden could cut its emissions from food production by 20-50%.

So, what can the average person who cares about further reducing their impact on the planet, or is moved by the misery and suffering inflicted on farm animals, or both, do with this information? For one thing, Carnegie Mellon researchers estimate that by eliminating meat from your diet just ONE DAY PER WEEK, you would reduce the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as driving 1,000 miles less per year. If you go even further, they say that going entirely vegan would reduce the same amount of emissions as driving 8,000 miles less per year. http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/environment/2009/winter/wheres-the-beef.shtml

Are you up to the challenge?