It May Take a Global Vegetarian Movement to Combat Climate Change

It may be impossible to reach the U.N.’s goals without significant changes in global diet, a new study finds.

National Journal
Brian Resnick
March 31, 2014, 7 a.m.

If we really want to cut down on glob­al green­house emis­sions, we’re go­ing to have to do something about cow farts*.

That’s the con­clu­sion of a study pub­lished today in the journ­al Cli­mat­ic Change. If we have any shot of reach­ing the In­ter­gov­ern­ment­al Pan­el on Cli­mate Change’s glob­al-warm­ing mit­ig­a­tion goals, the world is go­ing to have to start eat­ing a lot less meat.

Thirty-sev­en per­cent of all hu­man-caused meth­ane emis­sions come from the world­wide ag­ri­cul­tur­al in­dustry. Com­pared with CO2, meth­ane is 21 times more ef­fect­ive at trap­ping heat in the earth’s at­mo­sphere, ac­cord­ing to the United Na­tions. While trans­port­a­tion and elec­tri­city ac­count for more than half of emis­sions in the United States, the EPA re­ports that ag­ri­cul­ture com­prises 8 per­cent of all green­house-gas emis­sions. And while re­l­at­ively small, that’s a sig­ni­fic­ant con­tri­bu­tion that can’t be ig­nored — es­pe­cially con­sid­er­ing how pro­gress in halt­ing emis­sions from trans­port­a­tion has so far been min­im­al.

“In or­der to have any chance to reach a 2 de­gree tar­get, fossil-fuel use has to be re­duced drastic­ally,” Fre­drik Hedenus, the study’s lead au­thor, wrote in an email. “However, what we show is that may not be suf­fi­cient, as the ag­ri­cul­tur­al emis­sions … may be too high. Thus we have to take ac­tion in both sec­tors.” Trans­port­a­tion and en­ergy are the biggest sources of green­house gases, but re­search­ers say a glob­al shift in people’s di­ets is also ne­ces­sary to con­tain cli­mate change.”We there­fore con­clude that di­et­ary changes are cru­cial for meet­ing the 2 de­gree C tar­get with high prob­ab­il­ity.”

So, how much less meat do we have to eat?

“It all de­pends how much we can and want to do in the en­ergy sec­tor,” Hedenus ex­plains. “If we do a lot there it may be suf­fi­cient with a 25 per­cent lower meat and dairy con­sump­tion than pre­dicted in 2070. If we do less, some­where around 75 per­cent less may be reas­on­able.”

If 25 per­cent to 75 per­cent less meat con­sump­tion world­wide sounds like an ab­surd long shot, it is. Glob­al meat de­mand only con­tin­ues to rise, as fueled by China and the de­vel­op­ing world. Meat con­sump­tion in the United States has ac­tu­ally de­clined in re­cent years, ex­plains Emily Adams, a re­search­er with the Earth Policy In­sti­tute. “Meat con­sump­tion peaked in the United States as a na­tion in 2007 and since then it has fallen 4 per­cent,” Adams says. “That’s not a 75 per­cent re­duc­tion like they are talk­ing about, but that’s com­ing without gov­ern­ment fi­at or ab­so­lutely in­sane food prices.”

But while meat con­sump­tion in the United States has fallen, that’s a small drop com­pared with the rising de­mand in China.

(Earth Policy In­sti­tute)

Also Monday, the IP­CC re­leased its latest pro­gress re­port on cli­mate change, find­ing that “glob­al cli­mate-change risks are high to very high with glob­al mean tem­per­at­ure in­crease of 4 de­grees C or more above prein­dus­tri­al levels … and in­clude severe and wide­spread im­pacts on unique and threatened sys­tems, sub­stan­tial spe­cies ex­tinc­tion, large risks to glob­al and re­gion­al food se­cur­ity, and the com­bin­a­tion of high tem­per­at­ure and hu­mid­ity com­prom­ising nor­mal hu­man activ­it­ies, in­clud­ing grow­ing food or work­ing out­doors in some areas for parts of the year.”

The re­ports are get­ting scar­i­er, and pa­pers like Hedenus’s un­der­score how, if we’re really go­ing to at­ten­u­ate the rate of cli­mat­ic change, we’re go­ing to need severe changes in our cul­ture. Elec­tric cars may come to re­place con­ven­tion­al ones, but they’ll still be cars. Get­ting people to change their di­ets will re­quire a glob­al change in think­ing and be­ha­vi­or.

The study’s au­thors aren’t ex­actly op­tim­ist­ic about this hard fact.

“Sub­stan­tial de­vi­ations from cur­rent di­et­ary pref­er­ences are un­likely and would prob­ably oc­cur only as a res­ult of policy in­ter­ven­tions,” they write. “However, policy-driv­en di­et­ary changes are con­ten­tious and would al­most cer­tainly emerge only after pro­ductiv­ity im­prove­ment and tech­nic­al meas­ures largely have been ex­hausted.”

*Cla­ri­fic­a­tion: Cow burps and ma­nure ac­tu­ally con­trib­ute more to green­house gas emis­sions than the flat­u­lence does.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
4 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×