THE VINE SEPTEMBER 22, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
As long as we're talking about meat consumption, I wanted to mention the (controversial) recommendation made a couple of weeks back by IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri, who suggested that everyone give up meat one day each week in an effort to curb the massive impact of livestock farming on global warming. The lack of oversight from field to fork that Sophia describes below is problematic from a nutritional standpoint, but the environmental effects may be of even greater concern.
Time's Bryan Walsh had a piece that did a fairly good job connecting the dots on the meat industry's impact: Livestock farming is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide (compared with 13 percent caused by transportation); 70 percent of the earth's forests have been lost to make way for grazing pastures; and the cows won't stop farting and pooping, so add methane and nitrous oxide to the list of potent greenhouse gases that are heating up the earth. Walsh also recognized the strain on resources that will result from increased demand for meat by developing nations like China. But his last paragraph was puzzling:
Still, Pachauri is just slightly off. It's a tactical mistake, first of all, to focus global warming action on personal restrictions. The developed world could cut back hugely on its meat consumption, but those gains would be largely swallowed up—sorry—by the developing world, which isn't likely to give up its newly acquired taste for cheeseburgers and pork. The same goes for energy use, or travel. It's great for magazines to come up with 51 ways you can save the environment, but relying on individuals to voluntarily change their behavior is nowhere near as effective as political change aimed at speeding the transition to an economy far less carbon-intensive than our current one. So, by all means cut back on the burgers—I recommend a nice deep-fried scorpion—but remember that your choices from the takeout menu will matter less than the choices made by those who inherit the White House next January.
The prescriptions for combating global warming aren't always either-or. Relying on individuals to change their own patterns of behavior is pretty inefficient, but so is waiting around in the hope that governments enact sleek new policies that transition us to a less carbon-intensive economy. Since eating meat is, and always will be, a personal choice, encouraging people to do less of it seems like a good idea (of course, taxing greenhouse gases so that the price of meat more accurately reflects the cost of its energy-intensive production would also be a good start.) Meanwhile, Graham Harvey makes the case for returning cows to the pasture as one solution, but that doesn't seem likely to stem the deforestation that is already happening at a rapid clip—and is bound to increase—as more people introduce meat into their diet.
--Marin Cogan
8 comments
I quit eating meat almost entirely 2 years ago (I eat meat now only when in social situations where turning down a meal would be considered rude). Good for my health, good for the environment. What's not to like?
- sdemuth
September 22, 2008 at 11:05pm
Maybe missing out on the deliciousness of meat...
- warfang
September 23, 2008 at 12:46am
The paragraph was "puzzling?"
Spot on, I'd say.
Another articulation of the tragedy of the commons as it relates to climate change.
Consider the following:
a. I enjoy eating meat.
b. Either a large proportion of earthlings will cease to eat meant or they will not.
c. If a large proportion of earthlings cease to eat meat, the incremental environmental harm of my continuing to eat meat will be negligible.
d. If a large proportion of earthlings do not cease to eat meat, the incremental environmental benefit of my ceasing to eat meat will be negligible.
e. It is rational for me to continue eating meat.
The only way around this logic is to negotiate a collective agreement for everyone or nearly everyone to stop eating meat, and the best way actually to achieve such an "agreement" will be to engineer our economies to properly reflect the environmental cost of meat production, in other words to price meat out of people's personal budgets.
Now, if you're going to enter into the political fray arguing for wholesale anti-meat legislation, it probably behooves you to abstain from meat consumption yourself, just so as to avoid a charge of hypocrisy. But abstention from meat consumption in the absence of such political action achieves little if anything.
- aeromonas
September 23, 2008 at 2:25am
Personally, I'm thinking of giving up steak for earthworms. More protein per gram than beef.
And here in Victoria we've got the giant Gippsland earthworm. Too bad they're protected.
en.wikipedia.org/.../Gippsland_earthworm
- aeromonas
September 23, 2008 at 2:29am
No, personal choices don't make much of a difference. To wit -- lets say 50% of the population makes sacrifices, and 50% doesn't. The green half manages to use less oil, which cuts demand, which reduces the price of oil, which encourages the non-green half to use even more, which puts us back where we started.
Also, any money I save from switching to a smaller car or better light bulbs will be spent by me on something else, and that something else will have a negative environmental impact.
- Andrew Davis
September 23, 2008 at 5:26pm
Whether or not an Individual policy decision (e.g. not eating meat) is rational does not depend on whether or not one's own policy decision makes little difference to the collective welfare. Just because one's own decision to eat meat or not to eat meat makes little contribution as such to the overall result (let's say global warming) this does not make it rational. The rationality test for any personal policy decision is whether or not in can withstand public scrutiny. A personal policy of not eating meat (when everyone else does) can withstand public scrutiny. No one will ask why I am entitled to make an exception of myself in this case. On the other hand, if my policy is to eat meat while others may not, they can justifiably ask why I am entitled to eat meat and they are not. The same goes for things such as paying one's income tax. If I make it a policy not to pay income tax when everyone else does, my not paying will be of little consequence to the collective welfare. But can this policy withstand public scrutiny? Of course, not. Everyone else would object to me making an exception of myself. Why should they have to pay tax when I don't? The test of surviving public scrutiny is the same thing as transparency or full disclosure.
- gnathan
September 24, 2008 at 12:11pm
Wouldn't free-ranging cattle require *more* deforested grazing land than their locked-up brethren? Also, with them penned instead of spread out, it would be easier to collect their various, er, emissions, and even process those into useful products. Could we keep them penned but feed them grass/hay instead of corn? Would that reduce the need for the antibiotic injections? I do worry about antibiotic-resistant viruses coming from penned cattle, but surely there must be some other way around that problem, maybe by keeping them in small groups, kept separate from other groups on the farm.
- dhauck
September 24, 2008 at 12:23pm
Good post, although two quick points for scientific accuracy - First, cows actually burp more of their methane (scientific term is eructate...) compared to what comes out the other end. Second, ignoring everything else and focusing only on diet, feeding cows grass causes them to release more methane then feeding them grain. This is one of those cases where it definitely isn't an either-or... is overall methane reduced in pasture systems because there's less need for manure storage, for example? There are lots more variables than that, but the argument focused solely on the diet isn't backed up by the science. Also, there are other health, environmental, and/or personal reasons to prefer grass-fed animals, which, again, does often come down to personal choice.
- dms521
September 25, 2008 at 3:27pm