Comments on: What’s your fair share of meat? http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/05/16/whats-your-fair-share-of-meat/ Global risks and how to respond to them, edited by Alex Evans and David Steven Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:49:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ashwini_meatlessmonday http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/05/16/whats-your-fair-share-of-meat/comment-page-1/#comment-10753 Ashwini_meatlessmonday Fri, 22 May 2009 16:22:39 +0000 http://www.globaldashboard.org/?p=9634#comment-10753 Your recent posts on climate change and sustainability have been informative and thought-provoking, especially this last article, which forces us to re-evaluate meat consumption as having effects that expand beyond the individual to the society at large. I am currently working at Meatless Monday, a public health non profit initiative that focuses on this very idea of cutting back meat consumption to not only benefit the individual in terms of physical health but also the society, through the reduction of carbon emissions. For the history and science behind the campaign check out Meatless Monday’s Youtube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpnKeYmR1NM. Your recent posts on climate change and sustainability have been informative and thought-provoking, especially this last article, which forces us to re-evaluate meat consumption as having effects that expand beyond the individual to the society at large. I am currently working at Meatless Monday, a public health non profit initiative that focuses on this very idea of cutting back meat consumption to not only benefit the individual in terms of physical health but also the society, through the reduction of carbon emissions. For the history and science behind the campaign check out Meatless Monday’s Youtube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpnKeYmR1NM.

]]> By: Richard King http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/05/16/whats-your-fair-share-of-meat/comment-page-1/#comment-10649 Richard King Wed, 20 May 2009 13:24:39 +0000 http://www.globaldashboard.org/?p=9634#comment-10649 That red meat necessarily has a greater climatic impact than white meat is a common misconception. Yes, ruminants (cows, sheep, and goats) convert feed energy into animal protein energy much less efficiently than monogastrics (pigs and poultry), and, yes, lifecycle analyses, which look at the total emissions generated from production through to consumption, also consistently show ruminants to have a heftier emissions hoofprint. But, such studies, while capturing inputs such as feeds and fertilisers, do not reliably account for emissions arising from the ‘second-order’ land-use changes, such as deforestation, caused by producing animal feeds. Pigs and poultry are far more dependent on cereal-feed than ruminants. As they cannot survive on grazing pasture alone (unlike cows, sheep, and goats), they are implicitly responsible for greater land-use change impacts. This makes the GHG picture between different types of livestock more complex than the simple ‘beef bad, chicken better’ message suggests. On the size of consumption changes necessary, it has previously been suggested in the Lancet that, simply to prevent an increase in emissions from livestock, global meat consumption should be reduced to just less than 33 kg per person per year by 2050 under a system of contraction and convergence. For more on these issues see www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/climate_change/bp_4aweek.html That red meat necessarily has a greater climatic impact than white meat is a common misconception. Yes, ruminants (cows, sheep, and goats) convert feed energy into animal protein energy much less efficiently than monogastrics (pigs and poultry), and, yes, lifecycle analyses, which look at the total emissions generated from production through to consumption, also consistently show ruminants to have a heftier emissions hoofprint. But, such studies, while capturing inputs such as feeds and fertilisers, do not reliably account for emissions arising from the ‘second-order’ land-use changes, such as deforestation, caused by producing animal feeds. Pigs and poultry are far more dependent on cereal-feed than ruminants. As they cannot survive on grazing pasture alone (unlike cows, sheep, and goats), they are implicitly responsible for greater land-use change impacts. This makes the GHG picture between different types of livestock more complex than the simple ‘beef bad, chicken better’ message suggests.

On the size of consumption changes necessary, it has previously been suggested in the Lancet that, simply to prevent an increase in emissions from livestock, global meat consumption should be reduced to just less than 33 kg per person per year by 2050 under a system of contraction and convergence.

For more on these issues see http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/climate_change/bp_4aweek.html

]]>