Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
GIVE UP MEAT To Control Adverse Climate Change? Your Government Might Force You To!
7 views
Skip to first unread message
perry neheum
Jun 19, 2012, 4:01:30 PM6/19/12
to
Did you know that “organic” cattle typically produce even more methane
per pound of beef than their less-well-treated brothers and sisters?
==================
"To fix the climate, take meat off the menu"
By Frances Kissling and Peter Singer
June 15, 2012
More than 50,000 U.N. officials, scientists, environmental advocates
and a few heads of state will gather this coming week in Rio de
Janeiro for a conference on sustainable development. They’re
assembling 20 years after the first Earth Summit was held in the same
city, and the goal now, as it was then, is to figure out how to cut
dangerous greenhouse gases and help the 1.3 billion people living in
extreme poverty. Or, to put it more starkly, how we can live ethically
without threatening the ability of future generations to live at all.
That’s what’s on the agenda.
But what we want to know is: What’s on the menu? Specifically, will
this large gathering on climate change be serving meat — whose
production and consumption are major contributors to climate change?
We tried to find out.
The first answer to our e-mail inquiries ignored the question and
pointed with pride to the event’s effort to be green. A U.N.
spokesperson responded: “There have been quite a few actions taken by
both the Brazilian Government and the UN secretariat to ‘green’ the
Rio conference. For one thing, the conference will be ‘papersmart,’
with no hard documentation issued unless a special request is made for
print on demand. I also know that the Brazilian Government has been
addressing plastics issues.”
Pressing further, we found out from another U.N. spokesperson that
priority will be given to “organic foods in catering services.” Which
sounds nice enough, except that “organic” cattle typically produce
even more methane per pound of beef than their less-well-treated
brothers and sisters.
The United Nations has been holding environmental conferences since
1972. Initially these events focused on industrialization, economic
growth and their impact on the environment. By the 1990s, the focus
shifted to the effects of global warming. At the first Rio meeting in
1992, 154 nations, including the United States, promised to stabilize
the level of greenhouse gases and prevent dangerous changes to the
climate system.
They have failed miserably. Since then, the concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has risen to a level that many
scientists think is already dangerous. Many climate experts suggest
that we have less than two decades before we reach a point of no
return — after that, nothing we can do will prevent climate changes
from spiraling into disaster.
No one really believes that the Rio+20 meeting will result in a new
agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In that case, the best
thing the conference could do for the climate is to remove meat from
the menu — and to make a big deal about it. Everyone at that meeting
should know that meat is a major contributor to climate change. It is
also one problem that can be solved more quickly than others. Cutting
out meat would do more to help combat climate change than any other
action we could feasibly take in the next 20 years.
A 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report,
“Livestock’s Long Shadow,” called raising animals for food “one of the
top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious
environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” Since
then, climate researchers Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang have
estimated that livestock and their methane-rich byproducts account for
even more greenhouse gas emissions than the earlier report estimated —
a whopping 51 percent. More conservative estimates say that meat
accounts for about a third of greenhouse gas emissions.
If the United Nations and all the national delegations and activist
groups at Rio+20 were to insist on eliminating meat at all the
buffets, private dinners, embassy receptions, luncheons and breakfast
briefings, people might start to think that the United Nations takes
seriously the damage that human activity is causing to the planet.
Yet, at a meeting that prides itself on being “green,” and where
environmental advocates will be pushing their agenda, talking about
meat seems to be an afterthought, or possibly even taboo.
While environmental groups campaign around the dangers of global
warming, it’s rare to hear prominent leaders suggest that people stop
eating meat — or even seriously cut back. At a recent U.N. meeting
that one of us attended, one speaker, who was from a top environmental
organization, spoke fervently about the need to reduce population
growth. Then, at the meal that followed his speech, he enjoyed several
helpings of osso bucco. Asked about the unsustainable aspects of a
high-meat diet, he unabashedly said that he “could never give up” his
meat.
And that is part of the problem. In the developed world, eating meat
is a sign of the good life. It’s a diet that developing countries
aspire to, although it undercuts efforts to reduce poverty. As the
number of affluent people in countries such as China and India
increases, so does the demand for meat.
To meet that demand, the FAO predicts that the number of farm animals
raised each year will double from 60 billion today to 120 billion by
2050. Apart from the implications for global warming, this increase
will put more pressure on grain, as vast quantities of it have to be
produced to be fed to animals. Scholar Vaclav Smil, author of “Feeding
the World,” has calculated that it is impossible for everyone on the
planet to eat as people in the affluent world do now. It would require
67 percent more agricultural land than the Earth possesses.
A 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
spelled out some likely consequences of continuing high levels of
greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades: In Latin America,
70 million people could lack enough water, and many farmers will have
to abandon traditional crops as the soil becomes more saline; in
Africa, 250 million people would be at risk of water shortages, and
the wheat crop could be wiped out; in Asia, 100 million people would
face floods from rising sea levels, and less rain could mean reduced
rice crops in China and Bangladesh. By the end of the century, the
seas are expected to rise between seven and 23 inches. Islands and low-
lying countries may simply disappear. Maldives is already saving money
in the hope of buying a new country when theirs goes under.
There is clear evidence that reducing meat production and consumption
would limit greenhouse gas emissions and possibly stave off these
tragedies. However, after multiple revisions and weeks of negotiating,
the word “meat” does not appear in the draft conference document for
the Rio meeting. Instead, the paper discusses the need to reduce
production and consumption of other products that cause global
warming, without singling out that key culprit.
Global climate leaders will have a lot of pressing challenges on the
table at the Rio+20 conference. It’s time to take the meat off their
plates.
[Frances Kissling is an independent consultant on ethics for NGOs and
a former president of Catholics for Choice. Peter Singer is a
professor of bioethics at Princeton University and a laureate
professor at the University of Melbourne. His books include “Animal
Liberation,” “The Ethics of What We Eat” and “The Life You Can
Save.”]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-are-they-serving-meat-at-a-climate-change-conference/2012/06/15/gJQAUn0afV_story.html
per pound of beef than their less-well-treated brothers and sisters?
==================
"To fix the climate, take meat off the menu"
By Frances Kissling and Peter Singer
June 15, 2012
More than 50,000 U.N. officials, scientists, environmental advocates
and a few heads of state will gather this coming week in Rio de
Janeiro for a conference on sustainable development. They’re
assembling 20 years after the first Earth Summit was held in the same
city, and the goal now, as it was then, is to figure out how to cut
dangerous greenhouse gases and help the 1.3 billion people living in
extreme poverty. Or, to put it more starkly, how we can live ethically
without threatening the ability of future generations to live at all.
That’s what’s on the agenda.
But what we want to know is: What’s on the menu? Specifically, will
this large gathering on climate change be serving meat — whose
production and consumption are major contributors to climate change?
We tried to find out.
The first answer to our e-mail inquiries ignored the question and
pointed with pride to the event’s effort to be green. A U.N.
spokesperson responded: “There have been quite a few actions taken by
both the Brazilian Government and the UN secretariat to ‘green’ the
Rio conference. For one thing, the conference will be ‘papersmart,’
with no hard documentation issued unless a special request is made for
print on demand. I also know that the Brazilian Government has been
addressing plastics issues.”
Pressing further, we found out from another U.N. spokesperson that
priority will be given to “organic foods in catering services.” Which
sounds nice enough, except that “organic” cattle typically produce
even more methane per pound of beef than their less-well-treated
brothers and sisters.
The United Nations has been holding environmental conferences since
1972. Initially these events focused on industrialization, economic
growth and their impact on the environment. By the 1990s, the focus
shifted to the effects of global warming. At the first Rio meeting in
1992, 154 nations, including the United States, promised to stabilize
the level of greenhouse gases and prevent dangerous changes to the
climate system.
They have failed miserably. Since then, the concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has risen to a level that many
scientists think is already dangerous. Many climate experts suggest
that we have less than two decades before we reach a point of no
return — after that, nothing we can do will prevent climate changes
from spiraling into disaster.
No one really believes that the Rio+20 meeting will result in a new
agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In that case, the best
thing the conference could do for the climate is to remove meat from
the menu — and to make a big deal about it. Everyone at that meeting
should know that meat is a major contributor to climate change. It is
also one problem that can be solved more quickly than others. Cutting
out meat would do more to help combat climate change than any other
action we could feasibly take in the next 20 years.
A 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report,
“Livestock’s Long Shadow,” called raising animals for food “one of the
top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious
environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” Since
then, climate researchers Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang have
estimated that livestock and their methane-rich byproducts account for
even more greenhouse gas emissions than the earlier report estimated —
a whopping 51 percent. More conservative estimates say that meat
accounts for about a third of greenhouse gas emissions.
If the United Nations and all the national delegations and activist
groups at Rio+20 were to insist on eliminating meat at all the
buffets, private dinners, embassy receptions, luncheons and breakfast
briefings, people might start to think that the United Nations takes
seriously the damage that human activity is causing to the planet.
Yet, at a meeting that prides itself on being “green,” and where
environmental advocates will be pushing their agenda, talking about
meat seems to be an afterthought, or possibly even taboo.
While environmental groups campaign around the dangers of global
warming, it’s rare to hear prominent leaders suggest that people stop
eating meat — or even seriously cut back. At a recent U.N. meeting
that one of us attended, one speaker, who was from a top environmental
organization, spoke fervently about the need to reduce population
growth. Then, at the meal that followed his speech, he enjoyed several
helpings of osso bucco. Asked about the unsustainable aspects of a
high-meat diet, he unabashedly said that he “could never give up” his
meat.
And that is part of the problem. In the developed world, eating meat
is a sign of the good life. It’s a diet that developing countries
aspire to, although it undercuts efforts to reduce poverty. As the
number of affluent people in countries such as China and India
increases, so does the demand for meat.
To meet that demand, the FAO predicts that the number of farm animals
raised each year will double from 60 billion today to 120 billion by
2050. Apart from the implications for global warming, this increase
will put more pressure on grain, as vast quantities of it have to be
produced to be fed to animals. Scholar Vaclav Smil, author of “Feeding
the World,” has calculated that it is impossible for everyone on the
planet to eat as people in the affluent world do now. It would require
67 percent more agricultural land than the Earth possesses.
A 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
spelled out some likely consequences of continuing high levels of
greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades: In Latin America,
70 million people could lack enough water, and many farmers will have
to abandon traditional crops as the soil becomes more saline; in
Africa, 250 million people would be at risk of water shortages, and
the wheat crop could be wiped out; in Asia, 100 million people would
face floods from rising sea levels, and less rain could mean reduced
rice crops in China and Bangladesh. By the end of the century, the
seas are expected to rise between seven and 23 inches. Islands and low-
lying countries may simply disappear. Maldives is already saving money
in the hope of buying a new country when theirs goes under.
There is clear evidence that reducing meat production and consumption
would limit greenhouse gas emissions and possibly stave off these
tragedies. However, after multiple revisions and weeks of negotiating,
the word “meat” does not appear in the draft conference document for
the Rio meeting. Instead, the paper discusses the need to reduce
production and consumption of other products that cause global
warming, without singling out that key culprit.
Global climate leaders will have a lot of pressing challenges on the
table at the Rio+20 conference. It’s time to take the meat off their
plates.
[Frances Kissling is an independent consultant on ethics for NGOs and
a former president of Catholics for Choice. Peter Singer is a
professor of bioethics at Princeton University and a laureate
professor at the University of Melbourne. His books include “Animal
Liberation,” “The Ethics of What We Eat” and “The Life You Can
Save.”]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-are-they-serving-meat-at-a-climate-change-conference/2012/06/15/gJQAUn0afV_story.html
Tunderbar
Jun 19, 2012, 5:06:01 PM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 3:01 pm, perry neheum <perryneh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Did you know that “organic” cattle typically produce even more methane
> per pound of beef than their less-well-treated brothers and sisters?
>
> ==================
>
> "To fix the climate, take meat off the menu"
>
> By Frances Kissling and Peter Singer
> June 15, 2012
>
> More than 50,000 U.N. officials, scientists, environmental advocates
> and a few heads of state will gather this coming week in Rio de
> Janeiro for a conference on sustainable development. They’re
> assembling 20 years after the first Earth Summit was held in the same
> city, and the goal now, as it was then, is to figure out how to cut
> dangerous greenhouse gases and help the 1.3 billion people living in
> extreme poverty. Or, to put it more starkly, how we can live ethically
> without threatening the ability of future generations to live at all.
I say that they should all only be allowed to get there using bicycles
> Did you know that “organic” cattle typically produce even more methane
> per pound of beef than their less-well-treated brothers and sisters?
>
> ==================
>
> "To fix the climate, take meat off the menu"
>
> By Frances Kissling and Peter Singer
> June 15, 2012
>
> More than 50,000 U.N. officials, scientists, environmental advocates
> and a few heads of state will gather this coming week in Rio de
> Janeiro for a conference on sustainable development. They’re
> assembling 20 years after the first Earth Summit was held in the same
> city, and the goal now, as it was then, is to figure out how to cut
> dangerous greenhouse gases and help the 1.3 billion people living in
> extreme poverty. Or, to put it more starkly, how we can live ethically
> without threatening the ability of future generations to live at all.
and sail boats for the entire trip, then they can all sleep under the
stars regardless of what the climate does. Then they should all eat
grass juice and coconuts they find on the beaches for the duration of
their stay.
If they did that, I might be convinced that they really care for the
environment. Otherwise it's just another expensive high carbon-
footprint junket for activists.
kady
Jun 19, 2012, 5:18:45 PM6/19/12
to
On 06/19/2012 04:06 PM, Tunderbar wrote:
> On Jun 19, 3:01 pm, perry neheum<perryneh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Did you know that “organic” cattle typically produce even more methane
>> per pound of beef than their less-well-treated brothers and sisters?
>>
>> ==================
>>
>> "To fix the climate, take meat off the menu"
>>
>> By Frances Kissling and Peter Singer
>> June 15, 2012
>>
>> More than 50,000 U.N. officials, scientists, environmental advocates
>> and a few heads of state will gather this coming week in Rio de
>> Janeiro for a conference on sustainable development. They’re
>> assembling 20 years after the first Earth Summit was held in the same
>> city, and the goal now, as it was then, is to figure out how to cut
>> dangerous greenhouse gases and help the 1.3 billion people living in
>> extreme poverty. Or, to put it more starkly, how we can live ethically
>> without threatening the ability of future generations to live at all.
>
> I say that they should all only be allowed to get there using bicycles
> and sail boats for the entire trip, then they can all sleep under the
> stars regardless of what the climate does. Then they should all eat
> grass juice and coconuts they find on the beaches for the duration of
> their stay.
They're in Rio. Their bikes would be stolen before they've gotten a
> On Jun 19, 3:01 pm, perry neheum<perryneh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Did you know that “organic” cattle typically produce even more methane
>> per pound of beef than their less-well-treated brothers and sisters?
>>
>> ==================
>>
>> "To fix the climate, take meat off the menu"
>>
>> By Frances Kissling and Peter Singer
>> June 15, 2012
>>
>> More than 50,000 U.N. officials, scientists, environmental advocates
>> and a few heads of state will gather this coming week in Rio de
>> Janeiro for a conference on sustainable development. They’re
>> assembling 20 years after the first Earth Summit was held in the same
>> city, and the goal now, as it was then, is to figure out how to cut
>> dangerous greenhouse gases and help the 1.3 billion people living in
>> extreme poverty. Or, to put it more starkly, how we can live ethically
>> without threatening the ability of future generations to live at all.
>
> I say that they should all only be allowed to get there using bicycles
> and sail boats for the entire trip, then they can all sleep under the
> stars regardless of what the climate does. Then they should all eat
> grass juice and coconuts they find on the beaches for the duration of
> their stay.
block from their hotel, along with their iPads, wallets, and anything
else that can be resold or spent.
Remember that classic scene in "Blind Date" where the instant Bruce
Willis turns his back on his car, they start to strip it? In Rio and Sao
Paulo, that's reality.
Kady
0 new messages