Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: UN to Look at Climate-Meat Link

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Oski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 15th, 2019 @ 03:11 AM
    England & Norway
    Faelid + Nordid
    United States United States
    California California
    Single parent
    Property management
    Germanic Preservation
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    21 Posts

    UN to Look at Climate-Meat Link

    By Richard Black
    , Environment correspondent, BBC News

    UN specialists are to look again at the contribution of meat production to climate change, after claims that an earlier report exaggerated the link. A 2006 report concluded meat production was responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions - more than transport.

    The report has been cited by people campaigning for a more vegetable-based diet, including Sir Paul McCartney. But a new analysis, presented at a major US science meeting, says the transport comparison was flawed. Sir Paul was one of the figures launching a campaign late last year centred on the slogan "Less meat = less heat". “ I must say honestly that he has a point ” - Dr Pierre Gerber, FAO

    But curbing meat production and consumption would be less beneficial for the climate than has been claimed, said Frank Mitloehner from the University of California at Davis (UCD)."Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat," he told delegates to the American Chemical Society (ACS) meeting in San Francisco.

    "Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries." Leading figures in the climate change establishment, such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Rajendra Pachauri and Lord (Nicholas) Stern, have also quoted the 18% figure as a reason why people should consider eating less meat.

    Apples and pears

    The 2006 report - Livestock's Long Shadow, published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - reached the figure by totting up all greenhouse-gas emissions associated with meat production from farm to table, including fertiliser production, land clearance, methane emissions from the animals' digestion, and vehicle use on farms.

    But Dr Mitloehner pointed out that the authors had not calculated transport emissions in the same way, instead just using the IPCC's figure, which only included fossil fuel burning. "This lopsided 'analysis' is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said.

    One of the authors of Livestock's Long Shadow, FAO livestock policy officer Pierre Gerber, told BBC News he accepted Dr Mitlohner's criticism. "I must say honestly that he has a point - we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport," he said. "But on the rest of the report, I don't think it was really challenged." FAO is now working on a much more comprehensive analysis of emissions from food production, he said.

    It should be complete by the end of the year, and should allow comparisons between diets, including meat and those that are exclusively vegetarian.

    Different pies

    Organisations use different methods for apportioning emissions between sectors of the economy. In an attempt to capture everything associated with meat production, the FAO team included contributions, for example, from transport and deforestation. By comparison, the IPCC's methodology collects all emissions from deforestation into a separate pool, whether the trees are removed for farming or for some other reason; and does the same thing for transport.

    This is one of the reasons why the 18% figure appears remarkably high to some observers. The majority of the meat-related emissions come from land clearance and from methane emissions associated with the animals' digestion. Other academics have also argued that meat is a necessary source of protein in some societies with small food resources, and that in the drylands of East Africa or around the Arctic where crop plants cannot survive, a meat-based diet is the only option.

    Dr Mitloehner contends that in developed societies such as the US - where transport emissions account for about 26% of the national total, compared with 3% for pig- and cattle-rearing - meat is the wrong target in efforts to reduce carbon emissions.


  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Lothar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 8th, 2010 @ 03:25 PM
    Bavaria (father) Norway(mother)
    Canada Canada
    British Columbia British Columbia
    Grassy plains near Burns Lake
    Deciple of Jesus
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    1 Post


    I hope I'm not being naive in this but I find this a little hard to believe.
    when I think back 200 years ago when this planet was teaming with wildlife.
    I find it hard to fathom that we have more domestic animals producing green house gases, then we had wild animals like the bison doing the same.
    if green house gases are the issue, animals are not to blame.

Similar Threads

  1. Could You Slaughter Your Own Meat?
    By Mistress Klaus in forum Self-Reliance, Off Grid, & Gardening
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: Sunday, January 8th, 2012, 09:32 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Friday, September 30th, 2011, 05:00 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 4th, 2011, 03:58 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Thursday, April 7th, 2011, 01:42 AM
  5. Fresh meat here...
    By SmokyGod in forum Introductions & Greetings
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 01:16 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts