Comments on: Fight climate change: eat more meat

By: Uncle B

Uncle B — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:50:46 +0000

Americans are dependent of corn fed meats from Factory Farms at the moment. A basic axiom to this situation is cheap corn. Cheap corn is entirely dependent on cheap oil – a simple agricultural fact of life in America! The end of the Cheap Oil Era spells the end of the Cheap Corn Era, the end of Factory Farming, the end of cheap meat in America, and for many Americans, the end of a way of life, or life itself! They may be physically unable to survive without high calorie, high fats consumption, and bred that way by chance!
The shifting sands of the times have left many “Smoke Stack Era” workers, now combining in soup kitchens with the “Legacy Workers” of the Asian capital and job migration from America, at a loss for means of survival, after all, not everyone can wear a whire shirt comfortably.
These folks, the forgotten and hidden folks, the disenfranchised, Unemployed, unemployable, under-employed, the Tent City folks, the Shanty Town folks, the Hooverville folks, once huge consumers of meat, now are happy for a crust of bread, and the Fattest-assed Executive Class have displaced them entirely on the American food chain!
America, Your time of great paradigm shift is upon you! Soon, you will pollute no more! Soon youwill war no more! Soon your great unmannable Military(save for conscription) will fade! Your great Executive Class of Lawyers and Financiers, will fall away from the troughs, unneeded, unwanted parasites, and the land will be free to the small time village based humble and proud once again! We will have Peace in the World without you parasites, spawn of the great wars, and life will be normal again! Meat eaters be damned! The World Over!

By: Jeff McIntire-Strasburg

Jeff McIntire-Strasburg — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:29:22 +0000

Wow… thanks for the comments…

@David — nothing in this post denies climate change… far from it. And I’m not sure where you’re reading any encouragement for those who’ve given up beef to rethink their choices — as I wrote, “there are a whole host of reasons to follow a plant-based diet.” Part of my purpose in writing this post was to encourage those who continue to eat beef to think about that choice and its larger impacts… that’s how I understood Hamilton’s argument.

@populist — thanks for bringing up the concept of conversion efficiencies… Lester Brown deals with this concept extensively in his work. No doubt that converting grain to meat is the least efficient way of feeding people.

I knew this would be a provocative post… I even thought twice about writing about Hamilton’s argument. The kicker for me was looking at meat production within a larger ecosystems perspective… obviously, that’s not the way it’s done today. Furthermore, I would think that shifting to this mode of production could actually bring down meat consumption… I’m no economist, but it seems clear that this kind of shift would raise the prices of meat — producers simply can’t produce at the current scale with methods that account for environmental impact… making it less appealing economically. There are definitely many other considerations here, but reassigning the full costs to meat production and consumption would be a good place to start…

Thanks for making me think, everyone… this isn’t an easy issue by any means…

By: populist

populist — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:21:23 +0000

This idea is sick.

Sorry, but can you imagine ecologically sustainable “production” of meet for 1,5 billion Chinese and if we add also India??? Can you imagine the impact on the environment?

If you would expand this to the whole world population this would be a catastrophe.

I would remind you on the second law of thermodynamic – the energy loss in the process of energy conversion:

“Conversions efficiencies are always much less than 100%. At each link in a food chain, a substantial portion of the sun’s energy – originally trapped by a photosynthesizing autotroph – is dissipated back to the environment (ultimately as heat).”

If you could for example use soybean as a food for people instead of livestock feed(as it is the case today), your energy savings would be huge and consequently less people would starve. This is important, as I don t believe that you can produce enough meet in an ecologically sound way for the whole world population.

And never mind the climate change – this way of industrial production would have to change in anyhow sooner or later. There is a new industrial revolution on the way, one that will have to take care of the nature and consequently also humans, as this is the only way 10 billion people can survive on this planet.

Take a look for basics in ecology in Odum or here: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/F/FoodChains.html#EnergyPyramid

By: jerry

jerry — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 06:13:57 +0000

Here is a good video on meat: http://meat.org

By: Norma

Norma — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:36:12 +0000

Additional facts to incorporate into one’s decision-making:
methane from animal agriculture operations can originate from two sources; first enteric methane generating most prevalently in ruminant animals. This same helpful digestive process also converts components of the feed to meat and milk protein. Depending on how manure – the second and larger source of methane – is handled from their on out can vastly change the carbon footprint of a gallon of milk or pound of beef. If the manure is collected and then anaerobically digested in a closed system to capture the methane, additional emissions can be nearly eliminated. The methane can then be used to heat the digester, replace fossil fuels used for electricity or heat, including those fuels used to grow the crops to feed the animals or pump the water that irrigates the grass pastures and waters the animals. There is minimal loss in fertilizer value of the manure after digestion, while peer-reviewed studies confirm >98% reduction in pathogens, fly larvae and odor. While not the perfection of zero emissions nor elimination of animal agriculture sought by some, it is one confirmed and economical means to reduce emissions by over 50%.

By: David Orr

David Orr — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:28:27 +0000

I am surprised that an environmentally-oriented blog such as this would post the unsupported claims and outright untruths as has been done here.

In an era where the political pressures coming from nearly every industry and economic interest that considers itself immune to the effects of climate change and instead joins the side of the know-nothing deniers, it is unacceptable for an online publication like yours to put up information that is misleading and that suggests that consuming meat, however it is raised, is good for the environment and good for human health.

There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is real and is caused in large part by human activity. Likewise, there is consensus that cattle are significant producers of methane, contributing to global warming, and that cattle cause water quality degradation and depletion as well as displace large amounts of agricultural land for growing feed crops where many humans could otherwise be fed.

It is simply irresponsible to say otherwise, but you go even farther by encouraging those who have reduced or eliminated beef from their diets to rethink that. I hope you will not be posting this kind of material again. The joke’s over, now it’s time to get serious about the issues we both care about.

By: Jeff McIntire-Strasburg

Jeff McIntire-Strasburg — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:46:35 +0000

@Sharon — Fair enough… and your criticism is always welcome. As you might imagine, part of the motivation for that headline was that it grabbed attention…

@Marc — Oh, yeah, this definitely needs more study… I was presenting Hamilton’s argument, and could have made that more clear… appreciate your feedback.

By: Marc

Marc — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:33:13 +0000

This SOUNDS great, and theoretically lets us avoid another potential disruption in our diets, but where’s the supporting data? Where are the peer-reviewed studies? A gut feeling isn’t enough to make such a sweeping claim.

It is conceivable to me that a steer that eats only grass from naturally fertilized pasture could have a negative carbon footprint. Root structures of grasses can be quite large, and soil can become a carbon sink, so the pasture could possibly sequester enough carbon to make up for the methane emitted by a steer during digestion. And it might be that manure decomposes differently on pasture than at the feedlot. But it needs to be shown through careful measurement.

Also, the type of animal you eat has a significant impact on your carbon footprint. A paper by Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews from Carnegie Mellon University (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702969f) is one set of data showing how the climate impact of eggs, beef, dairy and poultry compare (including all aspects of their production, including growing the feed, transportation, etc.).

By: Sharon

Sharon — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:55:40 +0000

Jeff, as a former colleague of yours who has always respected your writing I have to take issue with this headline, “Fight climate change: eat more meat.” Is that even what this article is suggesting people do? Eat MORE meat? It sounds to me like you’re actually saying “if you choose to eat meat then eat BETTER meat.” One example of one farmer who’s found a way to rationalize their meat production hardly spells out “eat more meat and you’ll save the planet.” Eating only meat that comes from small family farms is not sustainable if people continue to consume meat at current rates, let alone MORE of it.