General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStudy: To Avert Climate Chaos, Meat Consumption Must Drop
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/12/03/avert-climate-chaos-meat-consumption-must-drop-studyWednesday, December 03, 2014
To Avert Climate Chaos, Meat Consumption Must Drop: Study
Despite need to lower meat, dairy consumption, public awareness of livestock production's contribution to climate change low
by Andrea Germanos, staff writer
There is an "awareness gap" amongst the global public of the link between eating meat and climate change, and that presents a real obstacle to keeping global warming under the 2-degree threshold, a new study finds.
From the London-based policy institute Chatham House, Livestock Climate Changes Forgotten Sector: Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption explores how the livestock sector's contribution to climate change14.5 per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissionsis failing to get the attention it warrants.
To assess public attitudes on the issue, Chatham House commissioned Ipsos MORI to conduct a multi-language, multi-country online survey. The results showed that 64 percent of respondents said exhaust emissions were a major contributor to climate change compared to just 29 percent who said livestock production was. Yet the two sectors' actual contribution to emissions is roughly the same.
From the paper: "Despite the scale and trajectory of emissions from the livestock sector, it attracts remarkably little policy attention at either the international or national level." It notes that few countries' mitigation plans submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reflect emissions reduction targets for livestock production.
By marginalizing livestock production's contribution to climate change, through, for example, lack of media attention, the lack of public awareness of the issue is not surprising, the authors write.
more...
handmade34
(22,756 posts)"...the lack of public awareness of the issue is not surprising..."
what is surprising is the number of supposed liberal, environmentally aware people, who continue to defend their meat consumption...
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Humans have been eating meat forever. We have other areas like fuel to worry about. If we fix those areas, meat eating may be allowed. I don't want to give up meat when we have other problems that need tending too.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)call for a reduction. We currently eat far more meat and dairy than is necessary for human health.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)You got it! And I'm not giving up steak for anyone, sorry.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)produced turkeys outweigh environmental concerns. Hard to figure given the catastrophe approaching.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... when the last cow and pig have died of global warming, and not one day before.
People who actually think they can influence public thinking with these sorts or pronouncements are delusional.
handmade34
(22,756 posts)declined when cancer warnings were attached to the packaging
sendero
(28,552 posts).... everyone realized that smoking had tangible and almost inevitable deleterious effects on one's health.
The idea that eating meat is unhealthy is pretty suspect all around. My point was not to argue that but to argue that human beings as a group never solve problems that have not manifested in a way that harms them.
They just don't do it, they are not ever going to do it and for the life of me I don't understand what about this fact the brain trust making these pronouncements doesn't get.
NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING. AS AN EXAMPLE THE CHINESE HARDLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR ENVIRONMENT EVEN THOUGH THOSE LIVING IN BEIJING ARE BREATHING PEA SOUP EVERY DAY.
If you want to do ANYTHING BIG in this world you have to understand what motivates masses of people. Telling people to give up meat while their "neighbor" doesn't won't cut it. Telling them to cut their use of carbon fuels while the developing countries continue to grow their use won't cut it.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)was a factor. I started rolling my own with a little machine because of the taxes on purchased cigarettes. Then, they put taxes on tobacco in bags that also wasn't within my budget.
Couple that with having to smoke outside, albeit with the nicest bunches of people you'll find anywhere, it was pretty damn cold. Laws were enacted that preventing smoking in restaurants, the very best place to have coffee with a couple of friends and BS...or in bars where cigarettes just went so naturally with a drink...
And people talked to me like I was a criminal because I smoked - people online that couldn't even smell the smoke.
After smoking for 53 or more years, my lungs were so clear that doctors' couldn't believe I smoked!
But the cost was just too high - not the cancer warnings. If I were sure I was going to die in a month, I would load up and smoke myself silly, but don't want to take a chance on getting readdicted in the unlikely event that I live to be 90. And anybody who didn't like it could just stay away...
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... has on our government and economy. Think I'll have a steak for breakfast.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I bet we've cut consumption by 75%. This is partly for health, partly because we refuse to buy anything from factory farms now that we're aware of that - we only buy directly from local farmers where we can visit hte farms - and it's a great deal more expensive to buy meat that way.
It's been good. I've discovered how much I like other foods. We've talked about giving up meat completely, as it doesn't seem as important now that we're eating so little of it. We used to think of a meal as meat and stuff to go with it, but once you stop thinking of meals in that way, the meat becomes much less interesting.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Cheese is harder, but subbing meat wasn't very difficult. It's so expensive here that seitan and tofu are about the same or cheaper.
I don't know if family purchases of meat are what is driving climate change though. I'd guess fast food companies.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)too many cows, and it's going to be either them, or us.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Unless we end population growth, eventual we will all be eating soylent green. And even then it won't be enough.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)We are humans. We eat meat. Get over it.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)handmade34
(22,756 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)And as humans, we often dismiss the harsh realities of our world with little more than the petulant irrelevancy of "get over it."
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)Is it something that, if you give it up, will impact your life so severely you won't be able to cope?
That's the attitude that has us precisely where we are with factory farming. Humans enjoy eating flesh but we don't need to eat it to be healthy. It's time to change.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Eating, like breathing, is one of the most basic needs, and eating meat is something I look forward to. To attempt an analogy here, just like humans can survive and be healthy in humid climates, I prefer an arid one - it makes my daily life so enjoyable.
The change needs to be in ending fossil fuel consumption in all forms, and in reducing global human population (peacefully).
Doremus
(7,261 posts)How do you propose society accomplishes that, given that many of its members consider meat-eating an important part of a happy life?
BTW, carbon footprint of the meat industry is as large or larger than any other.
So, again, how do you suggest we end fossil fuel consumption when meat eaters insist on maintaining status quo?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Doremus
(7,261 posts)By "local" I assume you are implying that local meat sources don't use as much fossil fuel as those further away?
The cost of transportation is only a small portion of the overall fuel consumption of the meat industry.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)who knew I had so much power in my hands that I could singlehandedly change our entire system of energy procurement, delivery, sources, and the global industry itself. LOL is right.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)One might start to think you haven't any facts to support your position or something.
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)I just can't. I tried. I was a vegetarian for a year, following a doctor's advice. I gained more than 60 pounds (instead of losing weight), and my health began to deteriorate. My arthritis kicked in years earlier than it could have, and I believe I was in a weakened condition that led to fibromyalgia, or something like it. I've never been able to get a diagnosis, but something's wrong and it's not in my head.
I don't eat excessive amounts of meat, but I do eat it. And will continue to do so. I hate factory farming but I can't afford to buy grass-fed beef or free range chickens (though I have my own chickens now, they are for eggs). I do eat some meatless meals, and lots of vegetables, but I have to eliminate wheat, rice and potatoes or I will continue to get fatter.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)Look at people's walls going up because the header is about "meat consumption" rather than "factory farming" which is what the article is actually about. Oh well.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)Don't mistake "shifting all livestock farming to the least emissions-intensive production practices available within a particular region or agro-ecological zone" for 'ending factory farming' - intensive farming can sometimes produce less greenhouse gases. From the report:
And anyway, the report says that changing farming methods isn't enough - we need less demand for meat and dairy, especially in the developed world.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)But, fine, if one wants to reduce demand, then one ought to do a little research on how people knee-jerk react to such an idea. This will require a more subtle marketing campaign in order to even begin this conversation. Many here on this thread immediately threw up walls just from the header.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)because they cannot afford meat..unfortunately, produce is just as expensive..
what a dilemma..
noodles for everyone ( rice is quite pricey too)
Doremus
(7,261 posts)Wow, we must be fortunate here in Ohio then. We bought our potatoes and yams for 49 cents/lb. last week, beans were a couple dollars for a bag, rice a little more. A head of cauliflower was $3.99, we did splurge on the asparagus for $3.99 for a bundle and I also splurged on some cutup watermelon for $5.
At least in our area, it's an urban myth that fruits/vegs are more expensive than meat. Even if they were, they'd still be the better deal because they're healthful vs. disease-causing.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)lettuce is 1.99 a head
apples on SALE are 1.69 a pound..
tomatoes are 2.99 a pound
bananas were 0.69 a pound
If you are feeding kids, $1 an apple is no bargain
onions are still relatively cheap
and since Thanksgiving is past, yams may be on sale
I am so grateful that our boys are grown ups and we no longer have to pay to feed them
Doremus
(7,261 posts)If you're trying to raise young ones today, the bargains are in the produce aisles not the meat cases. With the added bonus that you are raising healthy children and teaching them how to eat for optimum health.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)We can only deplete them "so" fast.
It's really up to Australians and Scots to get rid of climate changing sheep burps.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)But of course, no one pays attention or takes this sort of thing seriously until it's too late. We will never learn as a species.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)RebelOne
(30,947 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)We eat too much meat, in general.