Eat more plants - environment will like it

Every so often I post stuff like this and I'll continue to do so because the research keeps coming in and the arguments still stack up: if we're serious about our environmental footprints, then we should reduce or remove meat in our diet. This time it's from the New Scientist: "Livestock are responsible for nearly a fifth of all greenhouse emissions, from the methane produced by their guts and manure, to nitrous oxide emissions from the fertilisers used to grow feed for them. Because it takes several kilograms of plant matter to grow a kilogram of meat, producing meat and animal products such as cheese usually greatly multiplies the environmental damage done by farming. The huge amounts of land required are driving the destruction of rainforests, for instance. Even small reductions in consumption, such as making Mondays meat-free, could make a big difference."
To me the argument is simple and I don't eat meat. I find myself how much of a sore spot this is with some people I talk with (when they ask me why I don't eat meat: I don't go around making myself objectionable). It's like I've suggested they give up sex with their spouse or suggested they live on a 50p a day! "I like my meat too much"; come on folks: surely you like your grandchildren more; enough to try to save them from the second dark ages? Enough to hope that when you're old they won't be reproaching you for not doing more? "What did you do in the climate talks times dad/mum/grampa/gramma?" "Oh, I just went on living in denial and expecting other people to make sacrifices." I hope that won't be the epitaph future generations will write for us -when they've managed to work out a way to be civilised again without cheap oil and in the thin strips of fertile land overlooking our drowned coastal cities.
Oh, and remember, this expectation of eating meat every day; it's recent, it hasn't killed anyone not to eat meat for a few days a week.
Better world: Eat more plants - environment - 18 September 2009 - New Scientist

health and eating are connected

Ray Collins' newsletter is proving to be quite a help to me in staying abreast of what seem to be the latest discoveries about diet and health, with a useful bit of evaluation thrown in. Now you can enjoy a longer, healthier life... without living like a saint! As a former wholefood shop employee who still takes this stuff seriously, this is a Good Thing! In his latest newsletter, Ray quotes Michael Pollan with some helpful advice about eating couched in terms that may help most of us in a 'rule of thumb' sort of way. They're not all totally consistent -my great grandmother probably wouldn't recognise Japanese or Indian food as food, for example- but in giving pictures of the kind of thing meant, they are pretty useful.

* Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognise as food.

* Avoid food products containing ingredients that are a) unfamiliar b) unpronounceable c) more than five in number or that include d) high fructose corn syrup.

* Avoid food products that make health claims.

* Shop at the peripheries of the supermarket and stay out of the middle - processed foods dominate the centre aisles of the store, while fresh food lines the walls.

* Get out of the supermarket whenever possible -shop at the farmer's market or local markets instead.

* Eat mostly plants, especially leaves - This means don't eat too many seed s and seed- based products and oils. Why? Because leaves contain omega 3 fatty acids which are good, but seeds don't as they contain too much omega 6 fatty acid, which isn't good for you.

* You are what you eat eats too - the diet of the animals we eat has a bearing on the nutritional quality of the food itself. A diet of grass means much healthier fats than a diet of seeds and grain.

* Eat well-grown food from healthy soils, this means organic, or well-famed non-organic soil.

* Eat wild foods when you can.

* Be the kind of person who takes supplements.

* Eat more like the French, or the Italians, or the Japanese, or the Indians, or the Greeks,. People
who eat according to the rules of traditional food culture are healthier than people eating a contemporary western diet.

* Regard non-traditional foods with scepticism.

* Have a glass of wine with dinner. The benefits to
your heart increase with the amount of alcohol
consumed up to about four drinks a day
(depending on your size)

Meat by numbers

The Observer has an article on some numbers associated with meat; whole article here: Meat by numbers. Two of the salient numbers are: "7lb The amount of grain it takes to produce just one pound of beef.
36.4kg The amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the production of just 1kg of beef, according to a recent Japanese study. It also releases fertilising compounds equivalent to: 340 grams of sulphur dioxide and 59 grammes of phosphate. It consumes 169 megajoules of energy. In other words, one kilo of beef is responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, or the energy required to light a 100 watt bulb fo 20 days."
I was also shocked to discover that consumption of meat in the UK has grow by 50% in the last 40 years. We need to stop eating so much meat people. I've said it before and I say it again; just because you like it doesn't mean it's right to eat so much. Either reduce drastically your consumption or become vegetarian. I've opted for the latter (believe me it keeps things simpler).

Another article in the Observer treats with the issue, their article quotes the UN's Dr Rajendra Pachauri who gives a less drastic piece of advice: "People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, "
Also note this:

Compassion in World Farming, ... has calculated that if the average UK household halved meat consumption that would cut emissions more than if car use was cut in half. ... [and the Climate Research Network report said that] eating some meat was good for the planet because some habitats benefited from grazing. ... vegetarian diets that included lots of milk, butter and cheese would probably not noticeably reduce emissions because dairy cows are a major source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas released through flatulence.

Water Shortages Cause Saudis to Cease Grain Production

This is disturbing news, pretty much as the heading states. It's the implications that are worrying.

"growing national interdependencies will increase international tensions. Some might assume that as the need for a reprioritisation of basic food needs become more pronounced, the world will adjust its production systems to suit (think ‘the invisible hand of the market’) — i.e. that people will begin to reduce the strain by moving away from meat based diets, for example. But, I would venture to say that the more likely scenario is that those who can afford to continue with the lifestyle they now have, will do so, and those that cannot afford to outbid wealthy nations like Saudi Arabia, the U.S., China, etc., will simply go without. We’re seeing this already with food, oil, and climate change issues. People on the bottom rungs of the ladder are falling off while the wealthy continue lifestyles of excess."

Sorry to keep banging on about this, but responsible Christian global citizenship in a world such as the one outlined in the article that the quote is taken from,
Water Shortages Cause Saudis to Cease Grain Production, Celsias, must mean we change our diets to eat much less meat. Ronald Sider said it in the 70's and it's still true. Meat is a justice issue, and now it's also an environmental one too.

Our meat addiction is raising our carbon footprint

It really is a bit frustrating: one of the single most effective lifestyle changes that could be made to reduce our carbon footprints would be to eats no or at least much less meat (I still recommend the Jesus diet!). So let's go over it again, this time in words from Microclesia.

The Japanese National Institute of Livestock Science estimates that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
...
It gets even more personal. Stanford professor Rose Naylor shows that roughly 800 million people suffer from malnutrition, while most of the world’s corn and soy is used to feed cattle and pigs. Depending on animal and process, up to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption. For U.S. grain-fed beef, ... By eating fewer large animals, we (1) use far less energy, (2) generate far less CO2, (3) potentially improve our health, and perhaps most importantly, (4) contribute to a more equitable and just distribution of calories into the world’s neediest communities. That, I believe, is Christ’s heart.

Quite so.