Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Meat-Eaters Aiding Global Warming?

Take a close look at the chart to the left. Note that the items enteric fermintation and animal wastes account for 110 Tg/yr of methane production . That's nearly as much as all non-anthropogenic sources produce and more than the amount from gas, oil, and coal use.

Now comes the study below which factors in the costs in greenhouse gasses in the production of various diets.

The results are pretty grim.

So I think it's time to put my mouth where my money is, I guess. Years ago I foreswore drivng as a contribution to a better environment. In as much as I fulminate regularly about the coming global climate change on this blog and elsewhere, it now looks like I must give up meat as well.

It's for the best from a health standpoint anyway. So here goes. My goal is to be meat free by my birthday in July. And please consider joining me.

I'll write from time to time on my struggle to become less of a carnivore.

from ABC News:

Your personal impact on global warming may be influenced as much by what you eat as by what you drive.

That surprising conclusion comes from a couple of scientists who have taken an unusual look at the production of greenhouse gases from an angle that not many folks have even thought about. Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, have found that our consumption of red meat may be as bad for the planet as it is for our bodies.

If you want to help lower greenhouse gas emissions, they conclude in a report to be published in the journal Earth Interactions, become a vegetarian.

In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that both researchers are vegetarians, although they admit to cheating a little with an occasional sardine. They say their conclusions are backed up by hard data.

Eshel and Martin collected that data from a wide range of sources, and they examined the amount of fossil-fuel energy — and thus the level of production of greenhouse gases — required for five different diets. The vegetarian diet turned out to be the most energy efficient, followed by poultry, and what they call the 'mean American diet,' which consists of a little bit of everything.

There was a surprising tie for last place. In terms of energy required for harvesting and processing, fish and red meat ended up in a 'virtual tie,' but that's just in terms of energy consumed. When you toss in all those other factors, such as bovine flatulence and gas released by manure, red meat comes in dead last. Fish remains in fourth place, some distance behind poultry and the mean American diet, chiefly because the type of fish preferred by Americans requires a lot of energy to catch.

Eating Red Meat Like Driving an SUV?

Can changing your diet really have much of an impact?

'It is comparable to the difference between driving an SUV and driving a reasonable sedan,' said Eshel, who drives a Honda Civic, and only when he has to.

Eshel, who grew up on a farm, has always been interested in ecology and the impact we have on the planet. He got into this research, he says, because 'now that I'm a professor of geophysics, I have tools in my tool kit that I can apply much more quantitatively and rigorously to evaluate what we do."

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Another Inconvenient Truth