Eating Less Meat Is World’s Best Chance For Timely Climate Change

Santa GertrudisAccording to some “experts,” as reported by Michelle Maisto in Forbes:

Shifting the world’s reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is important, certainly. But the world’s best chance for achieving timely, disaster-averting climate change may actually be a vegetarian diet eating less meat, according to a recent report in World Watch Magazine. (While I’d happily nudge the world toward a vegetarian diet, the report authors are more measured and simply suggest diets containing less meat.)

“The entire goal of today’s international climate objectives can be achieved by replacing just one-fourth of today’s least eco-friendly food products with better alternatives,” co-author Robert Goodland, a former World Bank Group environmental advisor wrote in an April 18 blog post on the report.

A widely cited 2006 report estimated that 18% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions were attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs and poultry. However, analysis performed by Goodland, with co-writer Jeff Anhang, an environmental specialist at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, found that figure to now more accurately be 51%.

Consequently, state the pair, replacing livestock products with meat alternatives would “have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations — and thus on the rate the climate is warming — than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.”…

[continues in Forbes]

, , , ,

  • Redacted

    Nah. The sun will just explode in 5 billion years and destroy the Earth anyway.

  • http://www.jaycob.co.nf/ Scruffy

    Bullshit… farts… w/e…

  • Bungle

    i agree, this is positive. more of this disinfo news article hunting geeks. we dont need to be anymore scared

  • RoastedEggplant

    The evidence isn’t in that vegetarianism is the healthiest diet.  Vegetarianism, though, does seem to inspire fanaticism; or is it the opposite, or is it that they feed off of each other?  Regardless, if one is vegetarian for deductive reasons, then it must be assumed that hunters and gatherers were only an intended step to the, now, self-interested and intellectually righteous path-followers.

    We now have choice, and, to some, it’s a determent and entitlement.

    Carbon footprint, watching after the planet, whatever: humans have always been subject to the Earth’s whims.  Our understanding of its cycles is tenuous; look at the daily weather predictions.  

    It’s a bit more than arrogant to assume we know the aftershocks of our actions on a planetary scale enough that we may preach to another about their diet.  What if a comet strikes you tomorrow?  Your fervor will be quashed as quickly as Romney’s presidential bid.

    • Monkey See Monkey Do

      You don’t pay much attention to evidence do you? Your ‘comet striking tommorrow’ theory for why we shouldn’t bother about anything is pretty rediculous.

      • RoastedEggplant

        This is specious.  In no terms was it mentioned that “we shouldn’t bother about anything”.  The fact that time was taken to craft the original response is evidence of bothering about something.  

        The *ridiculous comet-striking-tomorrow comment is not a theory, but it is a weak argument when taken alone.  When read as a connotative statement, however, it includes any number of plausible events that could blast portions of Western civilization back to the stone age, stripping away many first-world privileges, including vegetarianism.  I suspect readers of disinfo understand this as an unfortunate, unintended consequence of privileged living.

        BTW, don’t shoot the messenger.  Shoot the argument if you have the ammo, the evidence.  The opinion above is only that and doesn’t present any compelling information; it’s reactionary diarrhea.  Try again.

        • Monkey See Monkey Do

          In times of scarcity cannibalism was really popular too.

          • RoastedEggplant

            That’s right: cannibalism is equivocal with animal meat consumption.  This is what’s called a Straw Man argument. 

            Also, in times of scarcity, some form of cannibalism IS still “popular”.  Think of the events depicted in the movie “Alive”.   

          • Monkey See Monkey Do

            The stone age village usually starts to starve because of overpopulation, agricultural mismangament and exploitative practices. On occasion its because of a natural disaster. I guess if the village starts to starve they should start eating the lesser intelligent beings and then move on to the humans (the elderly, the weak etc). When humans are given the oppurtunity to reduce the suffering around us, we should. 

  • emperorreagan

    The best way to deal with a host of problems (climate change, energy, fresh water, war) is for people to have fewer babies and consume less stuff.  1 TV and 2 kids per household, max!  

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/WorldPeace-Shabazz-Archdeacon/100000658652449 WorldPeace Shabazz Archdeacon

      why do we need a tv?

      • emperorreagan

        1 TV would be a pretty big jump towards more conservative consumption in a country like the US where there are more TVs, on average, in a household than people.

  • Eric_D_Read

    If vegans were really so concerned about the planet, they would recognize the real problem: too damn many people.
    So instead of preaching to omnivores like myself about the evils of our diet, do something to really help save the planet; kill yourself.

    • mannyfurious

      yeah, but I’ve never understood why people are so concerned with over-population. It seems to be a problem that’s going to take care of itself (i.e. if the planet can no longer support a certain number of human beings, many, if not most, of those human beings will die, thereby returning the planet to a certain kind of equilibrium). 

      • Eric_D_Read

        I don’t doubt for a second that the problem will take care of itself sooner or later. I just also think that humans are resourceful enough to delay the process for quite some time, and take out a ton of species in the meantime that are far more deserving of life than most humans.

        Plus, I’d like to be able to witness the return to equilibrium, or even the early stages, in my lifetime.

  • ????k

    The easiest way to effect climate change would be to use hemp to produce the majority of our energy local, raw materials, and chemicals. Instead of mining fossil fuels and transporting them across the earth. 

21