Environment & Energy

Eugene

(61,937 posts) Wed Dec 5, 2018, 12:21 PM Dec 2018

Beef-eating 'must fall drastically' as world population grows

Source: The Guardian

Beef-eating 'must fall drastically' as world population grows

Current food habits will lead to destruction of all forests and catastrophic climate change by 2050, report finds

Damian Carrington in Katowice
Wed 5 Dec 2018 10.29 GMT

People in rich nations will have to make big cuts to the amount of beef and lamb they eat if the world is to be able to feed 10 billion people, according to a new report. These cuts and a series of other measures are also needed to prevent catastrophic climate change, it says.

More than 50% more food will be needed by 2050, according to the World Resources Institute (WRI) report, but greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture will have to fall by two-thirds at the same time. The extra food will have to be produced without creating new farmland, it says, otherwise the world’s remaining forests face destruction. Meat and dairy production use 83% of farmland and produce 60% of agriculture’s emissions.

Increasing the amount of food produced per hectare was the most critical step, the experts said, followed by cutting meat-eating and putting a stop to the wasting of one-third of food produced.

“We have to change how we produce and consume food, not just for environmental reasons, but because this is an existential issue for humans,” said Janet Ranganathan, vice-president for science and research at the WRI.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/05/beef-eating-must-fall-drastically-as-world-population-grows-report

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Beef-eating 'must fall drastically' as world population grows (Original Post) Eugene Dec 2018 OP

it certainly has in my household... My parents would have been shocked at how many legumes I eat, hlthe2b Dec 2018 #1

I do worry about more animals suffering as people eat more of the smaller animals. mucifer Dec 2018 #2

Environmental reasons and existential reasons are the same. Eyeball_Kid Dec 2018 #3

"Meat and dairy production use 83% of farmland and produce 60% of agriculture's emissions"... NeoGreen Dec 2018 #4

Vegan cheese is just as tasty BeneathTheMire Dec 2018 #7

To be honest... NeoGreen Dec 2018 #8

Eventually, as more temporary solutions are employed, NCjack Dec 2018 #5

I've cut way back on my beef consumption out of necessity OnlinePoker Dec 2018 #6

Human dietary habits will change when they are forced to. The_jackalope Dec 2018 #9

hlthe2b

(102,331 posts)

1. it certainly has in my household... My parents would have been shocked at how many legumes I eat,

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 12:24 PM

Dec 2018

though admittedly, my dairy consumption has not dropped. Hmm...dairy isn't mentioned....

mucifer

(23,559 posts)

2. I do worry about more animals suffering as people eat more of the smaller animals.

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 12:27 PM

Dec 2018

Eyeball_Kid

(7,433 posts)

3. Environmental reasons and existential reasons are the same.

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 12:31 PM

Dec 2018

Our environment dictates our survivability. We affect our environment in ways that challenge our survivability.

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts)

4. "Meat and dairy production use 83% of farmland and produce 60% of agriculture's emissions"...

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 12:36 PM

Dec 2018

...oiy, will I have to give up cheese too?

BeneathTheMire

(76 posts)

7. Vegan cheese is just as tasty

Reply to NeoGreen (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:22 PM

Dec 2018

If you get the right ones

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts)

8. To be honest...

Reply to BeneathTheMire (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:38 PM

Dec 2018

...I expect that my entire diet will be adjusted to what i can grow and/or barter for on my own sometime (soon?) in the future.

Missing cheese maybe the least of my losses.

NCjack

(10,279 posts)

5. Eventually, as more temporary solutions are employed,

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 12:37 PM

Dec 2018

over population will have to be addressed.

OnlinePoker

(5,725 posts)

6. I've cut way back on my beef consumption out of necessity

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 01:25 PM

Dec 2018

Aside from hamburger once in a while and my once a year steak and roast, I don't buy it because it costs an arm and a leg now. When I was in the Canadian Forces, we were getting beef from New Zealand because it was cheaper than what was available from Alberta (and that was during the mad-cow crisis when we couldn't sell it anywhere but here in Canada). Of course, the consequences, I now have to take iron supplements because of donating blood, on my last physical my iron stores were at rock bottom.

The_jackalope

(1,660 posts)

9. Human dietary habits will change when they are forced to.

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 09:56 PM

Dec 2018

A few will make proactive choices, but that number will not be high. Behaviour is very hard to influence through moral arguments. Consumption patterns typically follow the availability of different foods. As the available food mix changes, so does consumption. More expensive meat, not ecological concern, leads to lower consumption.

I'd also take issue with this paragraph:

Increasing the amount of food produced per hectare was the most critical step, the experts said, followed by cutting meat-eating and putting a stop to the wasting of one-third of food produced.

What this approach would do is simply to recapitulate the effect of Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution, with some embellishments. The increase in food per hectare during the Green Revolution was driven mainly by the introduction of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers produced by the Haber-Bosch process, new species of food plants, and the introduction of irrigation to previously dry areas.

However, the end result was the population explosion that got Paul Ehrlich's attention. The world population growth rate peaked during the decade from the mid-60s to the mid-70s, at about 2.2%. This booming growth rate was made possible at least in part by the extra calories available. There is no evidence that the simple relationship (more food = more people) would be magically invalidated on a second attempt. More food (and better food utilization, which has the same result) are not the answer to a growing population.

A limit on the food supply will, however, act as a brake to population growth. This effect has been observed in mice, but it's hardly a popular idea when applied to humans.

Reply to this discussion