Eating less meat is better for the environment
Although we often associate gas guzzling vehicles and monster homes with climate change, what we eat is also a significant factor. From an environmental point of view, meat and cheese require far more energy to produce and have a much greater impact on the environment than plant based products. In fact, a meat-based diet requires 7-10 times more land than a plant-based diet!
Here’s another interesting fact: according to the Environmental Working Group, if you eat one less burger a week, over a year it’s like taking your car off the road for 320 miles or line-drying your clothes half the time.
Overall, methane and nitrous oxide are the main greenhouse gases associated with meat production. Their three main sources are:
- ruminant digestion (eg. cows, sheep)
- feed production
- manure.
Lamb, beef, cheese, milk and pork generate the most greenhouse gases (in that order), and are also the most resource intensive. Interestingly, farmed salmon ranks after pork for greenhouse gas emissions, but requires far less energy to produce, so has a far lower overall environmental impact. Water pollution is also a serious environmental impact of meat production, and there are many health risks associated with excessive meat consumption.
Some solutions
In many parts of the world, initiatives to encourage the reduction of meat consumption (eg. the “Meatless Monday”movement, “Vegetarian Monday” in Ghent, Belgium) are growing. Governments, businesses and individuals have often been key players, and while generally supported (and sometimes initiated by) animal rights groups, more often the motivation is environmental, rather than compassionate. Here’s a video about Meatless Mondays:
Eating less meat can also be cheaper, or alternatively the same amount of money could be spent to buy smaller amounts of higher quality food (which tends to be more expensive). For a number of reasons, including reduced pesticide use and lower energy requirements, meat that is grass fed and/or organic is a better overall choice for the environment. To date, however, it’s unclear how much better it is than conventional, feedlot based systems in addressing climate change in particular. Grass fed animals tend to take longer to gain weight, so live longer and produce more methane. And while preferable, both methods still require far more energy to produce than plant based products, so reducing meat consumption remains the best and most efficient option. This is followed by switching to organic “free range” type products, which are not only better for the environment, but healthier and more humane.
Given the number of restaurants in Nelson that have tofu or at least veggie based options on their menus, chances are if you live around here, you probably already have a meatless meal at least occasionally. But regardless of where you’re at diet-wise, eating more plant based meals can be an important part of personally addressing climate change.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:06 am
I’m calling bull on the science behind this article if in fact there is any. It oversimplifies the situation and doesn’t take into account many other factors.
Vegetarians eat vegetables that come mainly from distant places as demonstrated by all the empty boxes in the recycling bin at upscale food stores. I kept track at two stores I got compost from this summer and for every box of BC produce, there were 10 from out of country. Transporting those vegetables causes more greenhouse gases than a pasture full of farting ruminants.
Then there is the fact that a large percentage of produce goes bad and is tossed in the garbage after being transported thousands of miles.
The part I like best is when vegetarians ask me for manure for their gardens which has to be the ultimate in hypocrisy.
To be fair, the vast majority of meat we eat comes from away also and I think that transport component of the food we eat is what we should be focusing on, not how much cows fart or how much land they take to raise. I have 17 acres but only use 4 to produce meat. The amount of fallow farmland in our region is astounding and using this land is how we will reduce greenhouse gases.
Local food produces far less greenhouse gas, period. Focusing on whether vegetarians will save the world is a slap in the face for local farmers who are working hard to do their part in the local food scene.
Let’s stop perpetuating myths and calling it news.
October 1st, 2011 at 12:06 am
Jim,
Making a connection between meat consumption and climate change is not particularly controversial. It is well supported by some very credible sources, including the United Nations, and has been covered extensively in media and publications such as the New York Times, the BBC and by public personalities such as Al Gore. You may not like it, but It’s no myth.
Similarly, suggesting that people reduce their consumption of meat through initiatives such as Meatless Mondays is pretty mild, and hardly a call to veganism (although some do support that as a solution as well). As for being an “slap in the face to local farmers” – you may have missed the part of the post that suggested that by reducing meat consumption overall, an individual could choose to use the money they saved to buy better meat (or vegetable) products, which would benefit local producers.
Rod
October 1st, 2011 at 9:31 am
Rod,
When 17% of greenhouse emissions are from vehicles and 12% from power generation in North America, the paltry 2.5% produced by livestock demonstrates that we are far better off to focus and these larger issues and not demonize farmers. 2.5%
Far more greenhouse gases are produced transporting vegetables and meat than any herd of cattle could produce in a lifetime.
Your assertion that “credible sources” have said meat is bad for our planet misses the point. We need to focus on things that will have a larger impact than reducing livestock emissions by 1% when dumps and careless handling of CFC’s contribute at least as much and account for just under 5% of greenhouse gases.
In other words, you can have a far bigger impact if you reduce/reuse/recycle, buy products locally with minimal packaging, compost, buy a new, fuel efficient and low emission vehicle or replace all your incandescent lights with fluorescents or LED’s.
Those measures will do far more for us than eating one less portion of meat a week. Asserting that we will save the planet this way is laughable and detracts from much larger issues we need to focus on. I’m sure dinosaurs were at least equal to cows in terms of flatulence and it didn’t save them from an ice age.
I’m off the barn with a BIC lighter to do my part. I’ll follow the sheep around and whenever they fart, blue angel baby. Hopefully the barn doesn’t blow up. I’ve already lost all my hair so I’m okay there. Must do my part so I’m associated with Global Warming Axis of Evil.
October 1st, 2011 at 10:11 pm
The barn is intact but I did ignite a small brush fire. Thank God for heavy equipment and a good well. Who’d o’ thunk that that a BIC lighter, a gregarious farmer and a sheep could cause so many problems.
October 3rd, 2011 at 10:43 am
Ah Jim. Again with the visuals. Hopefully no sheep were harmed in your efforts to burn off the methane.
I’ve been learning about just what all is involved in producing the meat that ends up on our plates (as you well know, Jim). It’s amazing how intensive the process is. And I’ve only learned about the slaughtering process. I haven’t gotten into the butchering. Yet.
I think the suggestion that we eat less meat produced from massive factories and focus our money on buying from the likes of you would be the best solution. It would mean we’d have to eat less meat, but it would also mean farmers like yourself would have to up your production to supply more people with quality meat.
I see that as a win-win situation. More money for farmers. Less emissions for the planet.
October 3rd, 2011 at 3:04 pm
A picture may be worth a thousand words but a few words can be worth an animated movie if you have any imagination as a reader.
Obviously, purchasing locally is a good idea whether you are talking about meat or lumber but generally, the sort of misguided information used in this piece frustrates me and not just because I produce meat as a product.
As long as we have folks espousing that meat is bad for the planet, local growers will have a hard time and I find Rod’s article way off the mark and hardly something that will save our planet.
Before we killed all the buffalo in North America, they produced plenty of greenhouse gases. Global warming had barely started then and killing them all should have cooled the planet with the sort of thinking Rod suggests. Animals likely produce the same amount of greenhouse gase now as they did in 1900. Trying to sluff off global warming on animals is insane when you look at how much greenhouse gas is produced in other ways.
If Rod truly supported local farmers, the title to his piece would have been, “Eating local meat is better for the environment.” The fact that someone local on the public payroll produced this only makes me more frustrated. Someone paid taxes to hire him so he could slag meat producers. Another reason why farmers want as little as possible to do with public sector employees. Farmers don’t get vacations or benefits and struggle to make a living, while public sector employees write irresponsible pieces like this and help ensure that farmers will continue to struggle while they collect a cheque every two weeks with little regard for the impact of their actions.
These sorts of articles are the kind of thing that make most people turn off and move on. At least it detracts from real solutions to global warming. At most it makes people glaze over and ignore the problem all together.
October 3rd, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Transportation accounts for approximately 10% of the energy required to produce meat. So, while eating locally produced meat is better, it still requires considerably more energy to produce than vegetable products that are not sourced locally.
There have also been significant increases in per capita meat consumption in recent decades, compounded by a growing global population. In the US for example, the population climbed from about 152 000 000 in 1950 to about 270 000 000 people in 1999. The average American consumes 55 lbs more meat a year than they did in the 1950′s.
While I support the conclusions presented in the post, the information and recommendations were not generated by me, but come from what I consider to be reliable and credible sources, and are widely supported. Here’s a couple look at if you’re interested:
Al Gore: I’m not a vegetarian but I have cut back sharply on the meat that I eat
Food and Climate Change (article from David Suzuki’s website)
As Chris mentioned, this problem is largely due to large scale, feedlot based operations, not small local producers such as yourself. And again, I don’t believe that the relatively conservative recommendation of reducing consumption of meat by eating a vegetable based meal once a week is at odds with supporting local farmers, whether meat or vegetable.