Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: People Still Don't Get the Link between Meat Consumption and Climate Change [View all]Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)81. they didn't explain the connection but they did link to this piece
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-008-9534-6
Climate change mitigation policies tend to focus on the energy sector, while the livestock sector receives surprisingly little attention, despite the fact that it accounts for 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 80% of total anthropogenic land use. From a dietary perspective, new insights in the adverse health effects of beef and pork have lead to a revision of meat consumption recommendations. Here, we explored the potential impact of dietary changes on achieving ambitious climate stabilization levels. By using an integrated assessment model, we found a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emission would be reduced substantially. A global transition to a low meat-diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO2-eq. stabilisation target by about 50% in 2050 compared to the reference case. Dietary changes could therefore not only create substantial benefits for human health and global land use, but can also play an important role in future climate change mitigation policies.
There have been several such studies.
Climate change mitigation policies tend to focus on the energy sector, while the livestock sector receives surprisingly little attention, despite the fact that it accounts for 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 80% of total anthropogenic land use. From a dietary perspective, new insights in the adverse health effects of beef and pork have lead to a revision of meat consumption recommendations. Here, we explored the potential impact of dietary changes on achieving ambitious climate stabilization levels. By using an integrated assessment model, we found a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emission would be reduced substantially. A global transition to a low meat-diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO2-eq. stabilisation target by about 50% in 2050 compared to the reference case. Dietary changes could therefore not only create substantial benefits for human health and global land use, but can also play an important role in future climate change mitigation policies.
There have been several such studies.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
People Still Don't Get the Link between Meat Consumption and Climate Change [View all]
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
OP
Well, for millennia, that meat wasn't raised as an "industrial product," nor as much of it consumed
villager
Apr 2016
#54
If you have a human population of less than one billion, that doesn't matter
FLPanhandle
Apr 2016
#60
Sure, let's ignore everything else until a 70% die-off! Steaks and SUVs all around!
villager
Apr 2016
#65
Actually, the extent of yours seems to be: "What can I say to get myself off the hook?"
villager
Apr 2016
#75
How much of what they consume is irrelevant? The nature of economic exploitation
RadiationTherapy
Apr 2016
#57
Restaurant offerings are part of the problem considering how many people eat out in the USA
Person 2713
Apr 2016
#2
People still don't get the link between chemical GMO industrial agriculture and climate change
AxionExcel
Apr 2016
#3
Considering how much land we've converted to fields, fueled with synthetic fertilizer
NickB79
Apr 2016
#12
the main problem is the methane produced by the massive numbers of livestock
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
#21
there are lots of things that can be addressed, but eating less meat is a simple and easy way to
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
#19
This is actually what caused my stint in vegetarianism, which kicked my arse
hereforthevoting
Apr 2016
#27
there are also horrible religious moements who think they need to over-produce babies
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
#40
"The right of the people to keep and bear children shall not be infringed."
GliderGuider
Apr 2016
#44
People who reproduce are deliberately and consciously infringing on you rights?
Marengo
Apr 2016
#48
The post I responded to seemed to be suggesting the right didn't exist in the present...
Marengo
Apr 2016
#43
I don't know about your numbers-- it's a tricky calculation-- but I agree with your basic conclusion
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
#39
the problem is massive factory animal farming, not just some cows grazing on natural land
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
#83
Conversely, I switched to an almost-completely meat-based diet three years ago
GliderGuider
Apr 2016
#84