Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say

  1. #1
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,274
    Thanked: 14133
    Blog Entries
    1

    Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say

    This would be funny if they weren't actually so serious about this and you know there is always an agenda to promote this and force it on others. There always seems to be an attempt to link what they don't like to endangering the environment. That way they kill many birds with one stone.
    _________________________


    Research led by Oxford Martin School finds widespread adoption of vegetarian diet would cut food-related emissions by 63% and make people healthier too

    Growing food for the world’s burgeoning population is likely to send greenhouse gas emissions over the threshold of safety, unless more is done to cut meat consumption, a new report has found.

    A widespread switch to vegetarianism would cut emissions by nearly two-thirds, it said.

    In three decades, emissions related to agriculture and food production are likely to account for about half of the world’s available “carbon budget” - the limited amount of carbon dioxide and its equivalents that can be poured into the atmosphere if we are to hold global warming to no more than 2C.

    While energy generation, transport and buildings have long been a target for governments, businesses and campaigners looking to reduce emissions, the impact from food production has often been left out. But on current trends, with intensive agriculture increasingly geared towards livestock rearing, food production will be a major concern.

    The research, led by scientists at the Oxford Martin School, found that shifting to a mostly vegetarian diet, or even simply cutting down meat consumption to within accepted health guidelines, would make a large dent in greenhouse gases.

    Adhering to health guidelines on meat consumption could cut global food-related emissions by nearly a third by 2050, the study found, while widespread adoption of a vegetarian diet would bring down emissions by 63%.

    The additional benefit of going further, with the widespread adoption of veganism, brought a smaller incremental benefit, with emissions falling by about 70% in the projections.

    Such steps would also save lives, argued Dr Marco Springmann, lead author of the study, entitled Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change co-benefits of dietary change, and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Tuesday.

    “Imbalanced diets, such as diets low in fruits and vegetables and high in red and processed meat, are responsible for the greatest health burden globally and in most regions,” he said. “At the same time, the food system is responsible [currently] for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore a major driver of climate change.”

    More than 5m premature deaths could be avoided globally by 2050 if health guidelines on meat consumption were followed, rising to more than 7m with a vegetarian diet and 8m on veganism. These steps, if widely followed, could also reduce global healthcare costs by $1bn a year by mid-century.

    Intensive livestock-rearing is a major cause of greenhouse gases, in part because of the methane produced by the animals and the massive slurry pits that accompany large farms. It also diverts water and grains to animal-rearing, which is less efficient than directing the grains towards direct human consumption.

    Non-intensive rearing of livestock, such as raising animals on marginal land, could be “an interesting proposal” that would allow meat-eating at lower levels with less environmental harm, said Springmann. “That is one of the discussions that could spring up as a result of our research.”

    Individuals were often confused by health messaging, food labelling and the availability of foodstuffs, he added, meaning that many people do not realise the harm that over-consumption of meat may be doing them. As populations around the world have grown more prosperous, with the rise of middle class societies in areas that have emerged from poverty, people have tended to switch their diets to include more meat as they have grown richer.

    Governments agreed at a landmark climate conference in Paris in December to hold global warming to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels, with an aspiration of an even lower target, of 1.5C. However, the exact measures that will be required to meet the global goal, and nationally set emissions targets, have yet to be fully worked out.

    Linking health and climate change in challenging our eating habits could have more effect than focusing on each of these issues alone, said Springmann. “By combining the two benefits, you have a more powerful impact. I think this will make more of an impression,” he said.

    “We do not expect everybody to become vegan. But the climate change impacts of the food system will require more than just technological changes. Adopting healthier and more environmentally sustainable diets can be a large stop in the right direction.

    “The size of the projected benefits should encourage individuals, industry and policymakers to act decisively to make sure that what we eat preserves our environment and health,” he said.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming

  2. #2
    Senior Member Cardinal TT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,640
    Thanked: 5995
    Blog Entries
    2
    Demonic rubbish



    Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say-drooling-smiley-jpg


    Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say-rotisserie-beef-rib-roast-1-jpg

  3. #3
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,274
    Thanked: 14133
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal TT View Post
    Demonic rubbish



    Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say-drooling-smiley-jpg


    Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say-rotisserie-beef-rib-roast-1-jpg
    Couldn't agree more.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    led by scientists at the Oxford Martin School, found that shifting to a mostly vegetarian diet, or even simply cutting down meat consumption to within accepted health guidelines, would make a large dent in greenhouse gases
    If they argued reduced meat intake for health reasons, OK, and if that reduced greenhouse gas then good, but to argue from a gas starting point ...

  5. #5
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Eat more meat, die before the climate problem has a chance to affect you. Simple solution.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FunFromOz (07-27-2016)

  7. #6
    I've heard of this before. Here are summaries from two journal article in recent years:


    Article1: Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change
    Anthropogenic warming is caused mainly by emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, with agriculture as a main contributor for the latter 2 gases. Other parts of the food system contribute carbon dioxide emissions that emanate from the use of fossil fuels in transportation, processing, retailing, storage, and preparation. Food items differ substantially when GHG emissions are calculated from farm to table. A recent study of ≈20 items sold in Sweden showed a span of 0.4 to 30 kg CO2 equivalents/kg edible product. For protein-rich food, such as legumes, meat, fish, cheese, and eggs, the difference is a factor of 30 with the lowest emissions per kilogram for legumes, poultry, and eggs and the highest for beef, cheese, and pork. Large emissions for ruminants are explained mainly by methane emissions from enteric fermentation. For vegetables and fruits, emissions usually are ≤2.5 kg CO2 equivalents/kg product, even if there is a high degree of processing and substantial transportation. Products transported by plane are an exception because emissions may be as large as for certain meats. Emissions from foods rich in carbohydrates, such as potatoes, pasta, and wheat, are <1.1 kg/kg edible food. We suggest that changes in the diet toward more plant-based foods, toward meat from animals with little enteric fermentation, and toward foods processed in an energy-efficient manner offer an interesting and little explored area for mitigating climate change.
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1704S.short



    Article2: Mitigating climate change: the role of domestic livestock
    Livestock contribute directly (i.e. as methane and nitrous oxide (N2O)) to about 9% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and around 3% of UK emissions. If all parts of the livestock production lifecycle are included (fossil fuels used to produce mineral fertilizers used in feed production and N2O emissions from fertilizer use; methane release from the breakdown of fertilizers and from animal manure; land-use changes for feed production and for grazing; land degradation; fossil fuel use during feed and animal production; fossil fuel use in production and transport of processed and refrigerated animal products), livestock are estimated to account for 18% of global anthropogenic emissions, but less than 8% in the UK. In terms of GHG emissions per unit of livestock product, monogastric livestock are more efficient than ruminants; thus in the UK, while sheep and cattle accounted for 32% of meat production in 2006, they accounted for 48% of GHG emissions associated with meat production. More efficient management of grazing lands and of manure can have a direct impact in decreasing emissions. Improving efficiency of livestock production through better breeding, health interventions or improving fertility can also decrease GHG emissions through decreasing the number of livestock required per unit product. Increasing the energy density of the diet has a dual effect, decreasing both direct emissions and the numbers of livestock per unit product, but, as the demands for food increase in response to increasing human population and a better diet in some developing countries, there is increasing competition for land for food v. energy-dense feed crops. Recalculating efficiencies of energy and protein production on the basis of human-edible food produced per unit of human-edible feed consumed gave higher efficiencies for ruminants than for monogastric animals. The policy community thus have difficult decisions to make in balancing the negative contribution of livestock to the environment against the positive benefit in terms of food security. The animal science community have a responsibility to provide an evidence base which is objective and holistic with respect to these two competing challenges.
    http://journals.cambridge.org/action...51731109004662

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
You can avoid major, expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your GMC. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in unexpected expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.