Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Eating less meat and dairy products won’t have major impact on global warming

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:03 PM
Original message
Eating less meat and dairy products won’t have major impact on global warming
http://portal.acs.org/portal/PublicWebSite/pressroom/newsreleases/CNBP_024345
March 22, 2010

Eating less meat and dairy products won’t have major impact on global warming

SAN FRANCISCO, March 22, 2010 — Cutting back on consumption of meat and dairy products will not have a major impact in combating global warming — despite repeated claims that link diets rich in animal products to production of greenhouse gases. That’s the conclusion of a report presented here today at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.

Air quality expert Frank Mitloehner, Ph.D., who made the presentation, said that giving cows and pigs a bum rap is not only scientifically inaccurate, but also distracts society from embracing effective solutions to global climate change. He noted that the notion is becoming deeply rooted in efforts to curb global warming, citing campaigns for “meatless Mondays” and a European campaign, called "Less Meat = Less Heat," launched late last year.

"We certainly can reduce our greenhouse-gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk,” said Mitloehner, who is with the University of California-Davis. "Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries."

The focus of confronting climate change, he said, should be on smarter farming, not less farming. "The developed world should focus on increasing efficient meat production in developing countries where growing populations need more nutritious food. In developing countries, we should adopt more efficient, Western-style farming practices to make more food with less greenhouse gas production,” Mitloehner said.

Developed countries should reduce use of oil and coal for electricity, heating and vehicle fuels. Transportation creates an estimated 26 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., whereas raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about 3 percent, he said.

Mitloehner says confusion over meat and milk's role in climate change stems from a small section printed in the executive summary of a 2006 United Nations report, "Livestock's Long Shadow." It read: "The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). This is a higher share than transport."

Mitloehner says there is no doubt that livestock are major producers of methane, one of the greenhouse gases. But he faults the methodology of "Livestock's Long Shadow," contending that numbers for the livestock sector were calculated differently from transportation. In the report, the livestock emissions included gases produced by growing animal feed; animals' digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods. But the transportation analysis factored in only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving and not all other transport lifecycle related factors.

"This lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. It'll sure as hell help water use and resource allocation!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good,because I've been low carb for several years and eat lots of meat
and cheese.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. It will have a major effect on our health, though
That diet of meat and/or dairy three times a day is killing us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. I can give up the meat, but I need my dairy...
Buy local organic, though...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FedUpWithIt All Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Producing dairy produces some meat.
Buying locally, cutting down on meat and eating seasonally available food are definitely important changes we can all make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. And just what gets transported?
Apples from Chile and oranges from Brazil, did that ever enter into your calculation, Frank?


didn't think so...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. oh yeah? see picture:


Bahrrrroooom!



actually cattle produce more GHGs than all the worlds transporatation GHG emissions. don't forget, methane has 23 times the heat trappping capacity as CO2.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I LOL'd for real!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. Any reduction in bovine blast methane gas emissions is a good thing for the environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. ACS has corporate ties and has been accused of coming under corporate influence.
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Chemical_Society

Notice the spin in the OP's article? It's not saying that the emissions from raising livestock are any less than claimed. It's just saying that transportation is responsible for more than claimed.

So, the claim here seems to be that, since transportation is a bigger problem than was realized, livestock is somehow a lesser problem. It's not. It's the same amount as it was before even if it's percentage of the total has gone down. In fact, since part of the emissions from livestock come from transportation (of feed, live cattle, meat products, etc.) an increase in the transportation estimates implies that we should also increase the livestock estimates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I happen to think this article is crap, but attacking one of the oldest SCIENTIFIC organizations
Edited on Wed Mar-24-10 09:28 PM by NNadir
with anti-science bullshit and innuendo is just fucking ignorant.

The American Chemical Society publishes about 40 scientific journals which are recognized throughout the world as some of the most important scientific literature in the world.

Even though we have dumb guys come here and cite selective attention papers from time to time like gospel and verse, the role of the scientific literature is to raise questions that help build scientific consensus. Not everything published in the scientific literature is correct, or even without an agenda, but the process of doing science and the prestige of scientific organizations are essential to fight ignorance.

Past Presidents of the ACS have included Glenn Seaborg.

I'm sorry you're so ignorant and that you think the only reason people do things is for money, but as a lifelong member of the American Chemical Society, I'll be one zillion dollars you have never passed a university chemistry course in your life.

Not one shred of your attack contains a shred of chemical insight.

I happen NOT to agree with the author, just as I disagree with many things published in peer reviewed scientific journals around the world. That doesn't mean I feel a need to impugn the motives of an entire class of people and their professional organization.

We don't attack the American Medical Association because some fucking doctor says Vitamin C can cause or cure cancer.

But NOTHING, absolutely nothing, is more dangerous and more pernicious as rote and unthinking attacks on science and scientists.

If you have something to say, try - hard as it might be - to say something honestly.

Have a nice fucking mystic rote evening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. What?
I'm trying to figure out what you're even talking about. What the hell is "mystic rote"? If that's some sort of woo thing I assure you that it has nothing to do with me.

Here's a clue. If you want to actually have an intelligent conversation with someone, don't start out by calling them ignorant and anti-science. I am neither. And that is all the response you're going to get from me on this. Your post didn't deserve this much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. "fucking mystic rote"
...From the most obnoxious breeder on this forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. LOL
I'm trying to figure out what was "anti-science" about my post. I guess he's talking about my opinion that ACS has at times let itself become a corporate mouthpiece rather than an objective scientific organization. Somehow in his mind that equates to ignorance and mysticism. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. How is producing less meat going to mean hunger in developing countries? I don't get it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stuntcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. yah
that part don't make any sense. All the grain fed to the animals for each pound of meat could be fed to people. No sense at all..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
12. Frank M. Mitloehner, Ph.D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
15. There are MANY valid reasons to moderate animal product consumption.
I was always a bit skeptical about the alleged dire threat of bovine methane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankeyMCC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
17. Major?
Maybe not the level initially reported in the IPCC report but still significant.

Not to mention the impact on general health, availability of less expensive food, more land available for more sustainable and efficient production of food and other products.

And certainly a major impact on the lives of the animals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC