I am posting this up here in the snow section because frankly, Global Warming is affecting (NOT 'going to affect, it is already happening) every aspect of our winters. It is a huge concern for anyone interested in winter sports, and has serious ramifications for anyone who works in the indusrty, like myself.

whistler has opened up more upper-mountain terrain in preperation for less snowy winters, and some hills in the Swiss Alps are in danger.

So what does this have to do with meat? The IPCC finally said something shocking to some people, an 'inconvenient truth' if you will, that one of the big drivers of anthropogenic Global warming (AGW) is meat production. And an easy (and cheap) way to stop it is to eat less meat.

here is an article about the event

Care about the environment? Eat less meat
Peter Fricker, Globe & Mail
Last week, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the United Nation's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, asked the world to "please eat less meat." Speaking at a press conference in Paris, he said meat was a very carbon-intensive commodity, a fact established by UN research showing that livestock production creates more greenhouse gases than all forms of transport combined.

So the top man at the world's most important agency dealing with climate change (the planet's biggest problem) is urging us all to cut meat consumption to address the issue. Is the Prime Minister ordering Environment Canada to draft guidelines for Canadian consumers? Is Parliament debating the matter? Are environmental groups demanding immediate action?

Unfortunately, Mr. Pachauri's plea will cause barely a ripple in political, media or environmental circles. Even being chair of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn't guarantee many people will want to hear this particular inconvenient truth. It's interesting to note that he followed his statement by saying: "This is something that the IPCC was afraid to say earlier, but now we have said it."

What was the IPCC afraid of? This hasn't been reported, but one could speculate that the global livestock industry and others with a vested interest in meat production will not take kindly to Mr. Pachauri's remarks. Neither will the politicians they lobby, who also hate having to tell citizens they need to make lifestyle changes to save the planet.

Even environmental groups are shy about touching this one

that sounds about right. Methane in the atmosphere is almost all cattle discharge.

I pledge to eat less meat. There was a time I laid off pork for a few years cos I think the pig is a filthy animal. Think I'll do that again. But on weekends I'll still have some bacon. Only 4 rashers mind.

Actually, the two main contributers of methane are animal husbandry and rice farming. However, rice provides a staple for more people than meat does.

It is also not just methane that makes meat production unsustainable, but also the fact that its takes so many resources to make it. I hear of one calculation that said thats its more efficient to drive a car than to burn calories from meat by walking.

i hope than anyone interested in this will follow Thursday's example and consiter cutting back on their meat intake.

so meat is a contributing fact to global warming?

damned atkin's dieters

When you are talking about meat production Oyuki, is that about raising cattle or does it include sheep pigs and any other live stock such as poultry and stuff?

Switching meat producers to grain framing wont really help either though. More GM products, combines, the trucks will switch to grains, and most likely over fishing.
Also factor in that corn is now being sold less for eating and more for fuel and we might start paying more for food while making less money.
There is no real solution to the problem other than to start with transportation changes. Modifying how we get around is the simplest solution and simpler than saying dont eat meat.

i disagree, Fatty. We are already producing a buttload of grain, but its all going to feed animals. Something ridiculous like 90% of the soy grown in the US goes to animal feed. Wheat and corn are also really high up there. Its crazy.

Not to mention, the GM crops that humans don't eat are being fed to animals. The scenario you describe is already here, and it is livestock farming that is driving it. All that farm machinery, resource use and energy going into grain is being fed to animals already.
And it takes something like 10 kilos of grain to produce 1 kilo of beef. It is an increadibly inefficient way to use protien.


Even the UN has stated that we can meet that caloric needs of everone on earth WITH CURRENT GRAIN PRODUCTION if we stop feeding it to animals and start feeding it to humans.

Plus there are other problems with meat, such as the methane problem that Tuesday brought up. Not to mention that meat production is one of the main reasons forests are being felled in the Amazon.


If there was a simpler way of cutting down our ecological footprint, don't you think that the president of the IPCC would be telling us?

i don't know about what the president of the IPCC meant, but i take it to mean all types of meat. Beef is the worst, but all animals are still to varying degrees inefficent in converting plant protien into animal protien, and require huge amounts of water and resources if grown on a modern, industrial scale.

Most of the stuff they sell to cows is crap food and cant be consumed by us. the term cattle corn and etc. Plus you dont factor in the cattle farmers etc switching over at all which they would have to do.

Ok, in reality, my idea is stupid, but in my world, I can be as creative as I want.

Eat all the Beef you want, raise all the cattle you want, just do it in large bio chambers.

They tapped into this idea (i think) in Mad Max 3, from memory.

These chambers could have methane collecting chambers/vents which draw the methane out. The methane could then be compressed & stored, and used asa power source.



Ok, I may be dreaming, but it would be a great way to do things =)

I can understand that cattle raising is a process that takes up too much resources and gives back only 1/10 th of them in the final product, but can you say the same for sheep for example? Sheep's are raised for wool too, not just for meat and a great amount of all of the weaver industry is supplied by that. If you stop raising sheep too, wont this industry turn to synthetic fibbers, which in a great amount are by-products of fossil fuel?

all they would have to do is plant a slightly different crop. Instead of GM corn they could plant corn for human consumption. The energy needed for such a change would be miniscule compared to the current amount we use for cattle.
i have a hard time believing that some large percentage of the soy crop could not be turned into food for humans.

As for cattle farmers switching over, yeah. I imagine that there would be a huge change, and probably need for government assistance.
As for switching over, what might they do instead? Less intensive animal husbandry? Other forms of farming? i don't know.
Industrial agriculture killed the small farm on a large scale some time ago.

But the reality remains that current livestock production is unsustainable and a major factor to global warming. As someone whose livelihood depends largely on the ski season and a stable climate, what do you feel is an appropriate response to this?

or one could say, which do you love more, snow or meat?

at this point, the main discussion is about reducing our footprint through consuming less meat, not giving up all forms of animal husbandry. Lets not get too extreme.
because i have no idea what the'industry' would do if all animal products like leather and wool were banned.

You will find me in your side with that, but then shouldn't be the thread named "Global Warming and Red Meat Consumption".

Unfortunately the western way of fast food living is not helping into reducing our CO2 footprint.

It takes 10 times the energy to produce hamburgers and sell them at fast foods than cook it at your home. Not to mention nutrition and balanced diet factors, which are not the subject.

its not cows farting that increases CO2 emissions but the production line from the farm to the fast food.

No oyuki im realistic. there is a far better chance of making better cars and trucks then there is to turning half the world in vegans and you know that.

The amount of delivery systems and plants will be more if you grow veggies thus the numbers put into this report only really show what happens if we just take out meat.

GM crops are all that NA produces mate really anyways these days.

I'm a 7th level vegan, I wont eat anything that casts a shadow.

In reality there will be many many "blanket" solutions proposed, more and more reasons raised why those solutions work or don't work, or what they will inadvertently impact and what that will mean, and less and less action.

The correct answer is factoring in an externality charge - namely to introduce a greenhouse gas charge into the equation, and then let the markets create the right innovations that will reduce emissions - because reducing emissions will then reduce costs. The knock on impact of an increase to the cost of a hamburger will cause fewer people to choose that option, and instead choose foods which give a better balance of enjoyment vs. cost, and the system will balance out with a healthier environment, and better choices...

According to my economics book anyhow :-) (The Undercover Economist is also a really good read by the way...)

Fatty, no one here has suggested that everyone go vegan. I certainly haven't. Whenever the subject of meat comes up, people get all defensive and start either aplologizing for meat (which is indefensible) or eggagerate the criticism into some sort of fanatacism where they have no choice but to give meat up completely.

Relax. I'm trying to be as realistic as i can in a world that thinks that giving grain to a cow is more important than giving it to a starving person in a developing country.

I'm asking people to be realistic about how their diets affect the environment (and our ski seasons) and to cut back on meat (Hell, we might have to do that anyways if energy gets more expensive)

Make all the apologies for meat you want, but it is still environmentally very damaging. No way around it. And we are only confining the debate to Global Warming, not the tons of other factors like sewage run-off and deforestation/overgrazing/cattle burn.

some people are calling for a carbon rationing system, where every person on earth is allowed to pollute a set amount. If you pollute over the amount, you must buy more rations, and the extra costs associated with it will drive carbon-intensive goods (like meat or air travel) to a very high price.

Carbon rations how are you going to calculate that? Im not making excuses for meat I eat less than most anyways. Im just saying that it isnt the solution to the problem at all. The solution that is viable and wont cause an uproar. Changing fuels is a way better now solution.