Producing one kilo of beef generates more CO2 than a three-hour drive while all the lights are left on at home, a new Japanese study concludes.
The National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan, which is behind the study, looked at the energy consumed in standard industrial meat production.
The scientists found that just one kilogram of beef – the equivalent of three steaks – is comparable to a 250 km journey in an average car plus twenty days worth of electricity used to power a standard 100-watt bulb.
And the report concluded that a massive two-thirds of this energy is needed purely for growing and transporting cattle feed.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations estimates that cattle occupy 24% of the Earth’s surface, so calculating the environmental load of a portion of beef is a serious matter.
And for vegetarians, the answer’s a no-brainer.
“Everybody is trying to come up with different ways to reduce carbon footprints,” said Su Taylor of the UK Vegetarian Society. “But one of the easiest things you can do is to stop eating meat.”
But for all you meat lovers, all is not lost. A Swedish study in 2003 revealed that organic beef, reared on grass rather than concentrated feed, emits 40% less greenhouse gases and consumes 85% less energy than industrial beef. So instead of reaching for the lentils, simply choosing better food could significantly lower the global warming impact of what we eat.
Click here for related Global Cool story.
industrial beef is also bad for our health, think of all the antibiotics and hormones that get pumped into the cows!
Comment by esme — July 21, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
we shouldn’t have to stop eating meat, because it’s an important part of our diet. but eating less or organic. but we shouldn’t stop eating it!
but, does chicken meat cause the same problem, or?
Comment by May-Linn — July 23, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Guess it depend on what you feed the animals with. I mean we can’t stop eat meat but we can change the way we “produce” the meat
Comment by Timmy — July 24, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
As a 70yr old life-long ‘veggie’ (vegan for over 30yrs)I can assure everybody that there is life after meat! One of the main reasons for the epidemic of heart disease, certain types of cancer and massive obesity in the Western world is our consumption of huge amounts of animal fat - our bodies just cannot cope with it.
Check out Viva!’s website for more info and delicious vegan recipes.
A vegan diet is the healthiest diet on this earth.
Comment by Ursula Bates — July 25, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
As a 70yr old life-long ‘veggie’ (vegan for over 30yrs)I can assure everybody that there is life after meat! One of the main reasons for the epidemic of heart disease, certain types of cancer and massive obesity in the Western world is our consumption of huge amounts of animal fat - our bodies just cannot cope with it.
Check out Viva!’s website for more info and delicious vegan recipes.
A vegan diet is the healthiest diet on this earth.
Comment by Ursula Bates — July 25, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
You fail to see the big picture. Almost all economic activity requires energy. The amount of the energy can be represented by the price of the item. So whether you eat a kilo of steaks, or a kilo of rice and beans, it makes no difference from a CO2 standpoint. REASON: The money you save by eating rice and beans…do you burn it? No, you spend it on something else. Suppose a Kilo of steaks costs $20 while rice and beans are $2. By itself, this is a big reduction in CO2 footprint. But that’s not the end of the story. Then you go out and buy a music CD for $18 for a total expense of $20. Either way, $20 economic activity because that’s how much was available to spend.
You might feel that less CO2 was emitted to produce the beans/rice and CD, but you are deceived. Ultimately all the royalties, lawyer fees, even profit from the CD is used by whoever it goes to to buy something else that in fact did require CO2 emission in order for those consumed items to be produced.
There are only a couple ways to really make a difference. One, reduce economic activity, sending the world economy into a tailspin (unless it is done via reduction in the world population). Or Two, change the source of the energy production to those that don’t produce CO2 once they are established.
We need to switch our consumption partially and temporarily from steaks and CD’s, etc to wind, solar, nuclear so that the energy we are producing 20 years from now is mostly “clean” energy. But these sources cost more money to establish, or have other drawbacks. So incentives are needed, basically taxation on energy produced from fossil fuels and direction of those taxes to tax credits for clean energy production. Make clean energy cheaper through taxation and people will switch on their own.
Anyone who can get this idea to the forefront I’d be happy to discuss this with further. I’ll subscribe to RSS feed so we can find a way to discuss it further.
Comment by scott ehredt — July 25, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Whilst I agree with scott, the further issue raised is that then people see green energy as being forcd on them. Those who are already struggling to pay for everyday things such as electricity will have their bills increased and it will naturally be seen as oppression rather than as a choice that they have consciously made. That will only create feeling against green issues and will damage the cause ratyher than improve it. The effects will not be immediate either and so those who pay are not going to be seeing anything for their money. Taxation on businesses would also not work as taxes on businesses are high anyway and it would simply lead to them relocating abroad.
A far more effective solution is to make it economic for businesses to “go green”. Companies such as Marks and Spencer, to name but one, are reducing waste and publicising it, not to create a better company for the environment (though only a true cynic would rule this out from being a possible reason) but because consumers want to know that they are buying products that are environmentally friendly from a company that is environmentally friendly.
Companies are using these issues to increase their market share through consumer choice, and ultimately this will have a far greater and far more positive effect on the mindset of people then enforced taxation. If consiumer choice can be changed through better publicity of green issues then this will create a longer term improvement without the poor publicity of another tax from the government. As crude and horrible a metaphor as it is, it is the carrot and not the stick that should be used to further the cause.
Comment by Ollie Rocos — July 26, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Ollie’s way can have an impact. But I doubt enough consumers really care. People can be altruistic but in my experience self-interest prevails more often than not. I don’t see enough people volunteering to take the load, researching to know which companies are greener than others and by how much, which companies produce which products, etc. But more often, people are willing to do their share, provided they know everyone else is chipping in also.
Taxes wouldn’t be on ALL companies so none would go over seas. Taxes would be on the production of energy based on fossil fuels. So as oil is pumped out of the ground, it’s taxed then at the source. When coal is pulled from the ground it would be taxed. The cost of these taxes would just be passed on to whoever buys the oil/coal. So the power plants would pass on the tax to the consumers. It’s efficient because ultimately each consumer pays the tax based on their consumption (i.e. the contribution that that specific consumer is making to the problem).
It would get a bit sticky for, say, goods made in China. Would China impose the tax and incent it’s own economy to switch to green energy. We would need to create a new trade barrier, unfortunatley. Add a “green start” to “most favored nation” trade status, or something. Any extra trade taxes collected in such a fasion could be returned to the country of origin, provided they are invested in green energy production.
Taxes should also be phased in slowly over 5-10 years. So if you already bought an SUV, your choice was made before the tax, so maybe you shouldn’t be penalized all that much. But if you buy the SUV KNOWING that the tax is coming…you chose to pay the tax. Implement the tax slowly over many years, ramping it up toward the end so that all consumers KNOW it is coming and make choices now based on knowing what they’ll have to pay. Cars last 10 years and ultimately the poor end up with those vehicles in 10 years, so we want enough incentive now that people start choosing more fuel efficient cars now.
To keep the tax from being too regressive, just create an off-setting tax credit to low-income people.
Comment by scott ehredt — July 31, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
It’s time we have a real debate. Global warming isn’t science, it’s myth.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics.
He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern.
To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy.
You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed.
Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment.
I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Comment by John — August 14, 2007 @ 8:00 pm