We are urgently developing research requirements with other European laboratories to make sure we understand and the disease (Schmallenberg) better.Give up meat to save the planet says expert
ONE of Britain’s leading experts on climate change has urged the public to consider giving up meat to save the planet.
Lord Stern, author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said eating meat would soon become ‘socially unacceptable’ due to its carbon footprint.
In an interview with the Times, he said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
He added: “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating. I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student.
“People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions through methane, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds.
But Britain’s livestock farmers argue they make an important contribution in the fight against global warming.
Dr Garwes, an independent livestock scientist, recently published a report on the subject. He said: “More than 60 per cent of British agricultural land is grassland and much of it, particularly the hills and uplands, is unsuitable for other crops.
“Semi-permanent rough grazing and improved grasslands play a vital role in locking up carbon dioxide and regulating the flow of rain into water courses.
“Without livestock farming, those natural resources would be abandoned and the landscape would soon change beyond recognition.”
What do you think?
Readers' comments (3)
Carl Barron | 28 October 2009 11:40 am
Climate guru: Stop eating meat,you say?
Another stupid idea is this. For as the entire output from the UK of co2 is approximately only 2 per cent of the total Global production of co2.
Hence if the UK ceased to exist it would make very little difference at all.
This wild speculation as to Co2 is only a new form of Tax, nothing more, nothing less.
Signed Carl Barron Chairman of agpcuk
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28 October 2009 1:52 pm
Meat consumption is wasteful of resources including water and land, not to mention secondary considerations like the increased medical costs associated with eating a meat-based diet. We'd all be better off giving it up!
There are entire cultures representing millions of people who have lived and thrived for centuries without meat, which is enough evidence that humans do not "need" it to satisy their taste buds or to survive and thrive.
In fact, the evidence weighs heavily in the other direction: the hazards of a meat and dairy diet and the benefits of a vegan diet are well known in the medical and scientific community. Health, animal cruelty, and environmental issues could be alleviated if everyone ate a vegan diet.
* U.N. scientists have determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse-gas emissions than all the cars, SUVs, trucks, and planes in the world combined.
* Researchers at the University of Chicago determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering climate change than switching from a standard car to a Toyota Prius.
* According to Environmental Defense, if every American substituted vegetarian foods for chicken at just one meal per week, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than a half-million cars off U.S. roads.
And it's just plain barbaric to breed, confine, and slaughter animals for food. Give up meat and dairy for your health, for the animals, and for the environment!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Bunney | 1 November 2009 11:16 am
Lord Stern is the classic scientist who is good at producing the evidence but poor at translating the findings into policy. If he uses the same basis for saying that we should not eat meat, then he should also be saying we should stop using petroleum oil. Burning oil for transport, heating and energy generation can eventually be solved by developing alternatives, but many oil-based products are essential to modern industry and cannot be replicated in the foreseeable future.
The same consequence applies to meat eating and livestock production. Much of the British climate and landscape is best suited to grass growing. Grass is one of the best converters of sunlight energy into an edible crop (through the capture of CO2); and it is also one of the best soil conditioners and means of providing sustainable farming rotations. Grazing animals are the only efficient way of converting grass into an edible product for human digestive systems. Grazing animals produce the global warming gas methane, but they also provide soil fertility for other crops and so reduce the need for artificial nitrogen – produced by using oil. Grazing animals are also essential for maintaining many landscapes and wildlife habitats (and hence biodiversity). In upland areas they are often the only form of farming.
So banning meat consumption would have more negative consequences than benefits. Lord Stern may be an expert in his field of study, but he is not well placed to think through the consequences of his sweeping statements for dealing with climate change. By making such simplistic comments on meat consumption he weakens his own credibility on the genuine evidence he produced in his report.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment