In the News ... Associated Press: Eating less meat could slow climate change
Eating less meat could slow climate change, experts say
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
LONDON - Eating less meat could help slow global warming by reducing the number of livestock and thereby decreasing the amount of methane flatulence from the animals, scientists said on Thursday.
In a special energy and health series of the medical journal The Lancet, experts said people should eat fewer steaks and hamburgers. Reducing global red meat consumption by 10 percent, they said, would cut the gases emitted by cows, sheep and goats that contribute to global warming.
"We are at a significant tipping point," said Geri Brewster, a nutritionist at Northern Westchester Hospital in New York, who was not connected to the study.
"If people knew that they were threatening the environment by eating more meat, they might think twice before ordering a burger," Brewster said.
Other ways of reducing greenhouse gases from farming practices, like feeding animals higher-quality grains, would only have a limited impact on cutting emissions. Gases from animals destined for dinner plates account for nearly a quarter of all emissions worldwide.
"That leaves reducing demand for meat as the only real option," said Dr. John Powles, a public health expert at Cambridge University, one of the study's authors.
The amount of meat eaten varies considerably worldwide. In developed countries, people typically eat about 224 grams per day. But in Africa, most people only get about 31 grams a day.
With demand for meat increasing worldwide, experts worry that this increased livestock production will mean more gases like methane and nitrous oxide heating up the atmosphere. In China, for instance, people are eating double the amount of meat they used to a decade ago.
Powles said that if the global average were 90 grams per day, that would prevent the levels of gases from speeding up climate change.
Eating less red meat would also improve health in general. Powles and his co-authors estimate that reducing meat consumption would reduce the numbers of people with heart disease and cancer. One study has estimated that the risk of colorectal cancer drops by about a third for every 100 grams of red meat that is cut out of your diet.
"As a society, we are overconsuming protein," Brewster said. "If we ate less red meat, it would also help stop the obesity epidemic."
Experts said that it would probably take decades to wane the public off of its meat-eating tendency. "We need to better understand the implications of our diet," said Dr. Maria Neira, director of director of the World Health Organization's department of public health and the environment.
"It is an interesting theory that needs to be further examined," she said. "But eating less meat could definitely be one way to reduce gas emissions and climate change."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
they finally caught on to this???!!! :o bout time.
they finally caught on to this???!!! :o bout time.
I know. Like you really need scientists to validate the obvious.
In point of fact, it ain't cow farts that are producing global warming!!!! It is all the PETROLEUM products used that go into "meat production." Eat less meat sure fewer cows to fat, but also fewer to drive to the feed lot, fewer to feed, less feed needed, less gas needed for farm tractors, less electricity to pump water from wells and irrigation ditches...and the list goes on.
I read this like...uh a DUH MOMENT from scientists. Can't see the forest for the trees...blame the hotter air on hot air instead of the hot and DIRTY air from diesel trucks moving animals to slaughter. And we don't have to mention that cattle raising and murder produce toxins that run into the ground water. God forbid we should ever own up to the filthy truth about animals as food, the cost to the environment, the vast amounts of antibiotics and fossil fuel it takes to make a pound of dead cow.
(I just can't stand how we dress up dead animals with words...pig becomes pork, cow becomes beef, mutton becomes lamb, tortured baby cows become veal EW SO GROSS. Just tell it like it is. No such thing as a ham burger or steak, it is murdered cow.)
i need to print up some shirts that say "cow farts ruin planets"
finally! this was covered on the news last night and all I could say was, "finally!"
i need to print up some shirts that say "cow farts ruin planets"
I'd buy one, especially if it had a little cartoon cow with a puff behind it.
I remember thinking when I read the article, "Well, it's about time they caught up with the rest of us veg-heads." I guess it is true that vegetarians/vegans are smarter than omni's - we know scientific stuff before anyone else!
But seriously, to be fair, they may have just been blocked from funding/researching/publishing/whatevering these findings before, kind of like with the initial reports on global warming itself.
I didn't really care for the article. They make it sound like eating other forms of meat ( like pork & chicken) is ok. They don't even mention it. Why the focus just on cows? And logically, isn't dairy just as bad for the envorinment? Plus they missed all of LD's points. Where did that article come from? Could you attach a link so we could all email them that this article only scratched the surface?
As soon as omni's read the word "flatulance" they will think that the article is funny and not take it serious. However, if the article would have mentioned about all the energy that is wasted to produce those cows then I think that people would take it more serious. But I guess it is a start. I think that they should mention how they take chicken poop and mix it with the cow feed. That may get a few people's attention!
Wow I didn't know that causes global warming. ;D
i need to print up some shirts that say "cow farts ruin planets"
Or they are deadly.
I didn't really care for the article. They make it sound like eating other forms of meat ( like pork & chicken) is ok. They don't even mention it. Why the focus just on cows? And logically, isn't dairy just as bad for the envorinment? Plus they missed all of LD's points. Where did that article come from? Could you attach a link so we could all email them that this article only scratched the surface?
That article was written by Maria Cheng, a medical reporter with Associated Press.
I found this story on the Top News at the www.aol.com website.
At Live Earth they would show little commercials between all the acts. One commercial was a montage of cows pooping. Everyone was laughing and you could hear people were disgusted as a chorus of "ewwwwwws" echoed throughout the stadium. At the very end of the commercial they mentioned how cows were responsible for so much of the greenhouse gases. I wonder why that commercial never made it to the primetime? I am sure people would start changing their eating habits if they were shown the commercial.
At Live Earth they would show little commercials between all the acts. One commercial was a montage of cows pooping. Everyone was laughing and you could hear people were disgusted as a chorus of "ewwwwwws" echoed throughout the stadium. At the very end of the commercial they mentioned how cows were responsible for so much of the greenhouse gases. I wonder why that commercial never made it to the primetime? I am sure people would start changing their eating habits if they were shown the commercial.
I remember that commercial!!! It was so gross! But I don't think it really worked, most people watching it just said ewwww and then stopped watching. There was one later that I remember that encouraged everyone to go meat free just one day a week. And specified- No seafood either! I thought that was pretty good. It makes sense to let people try to convert slowly. I was also really happy they had veggie eats at the vendors.