This article is likely going to be bullshit. Yeah, and a hell of a lot more people are eating meat than driving cars or using planes. The EPA reports about ~18% of emissions coming from agriculture in the US. The largest producer is, you guessed it, energy generation (I think, don't have the sources on hand). You know where the emissions from cows comes from? The energy and fuels that are burned processing the feed, transporting the grains, etc. You know how best you are going to reduce emissions? The switch-over to electric automobiles and more efficient transportation such as trains. Cows farting isn't going to be the largest contributor, and importantly, all that methane is derived from carbon just taken from the air in the form of crops. And some of those links have next to zero citations, only saying "According to our own calculations". How about instead of pandering on about all these insane "drop everything you like" fixes that will never work, we actually put focus into electing people into office that will elect and support regulations, the passage of grants for green energy, and focus on the solutions that will actually fix global warming. Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit. I am sick of the generation wars these news places seem to live pushing on us. If the earth heats up, we will all just die, along with the cows. Yep, totally true. It's not like humans adapt and move to counter things that are against us. Nope. All we are going to do in a disaster is freeze and ignore the issue. This is what I hate about the global warming articles. Every one of them. Quit trying to scare everyone into acting for two weeks before they get bored and go back to their old lives. Real change comes from education and techniques that actually work, not this sort of crap. This guy put it wellaising animals to eat produces more greenhouse gasses (via methane and nitrous oxide) than all of the carbon dioxide excreted by automobiles, boats, planes and trains in the world combined.
Putting this off for another generation – the way our parents have – just isn’t feasible. Millennials have the opportunity to use our economic power and personal choices to effect real change, and it’s our responsibility to do so.
Besides, if we don’t stop and reverse climate change, all we’ll have left to eat – if we’re lucky – is fish. Whoops – looks like we’re running out of fish, too.
You could have suggested reducing the amount of meat you eat, properly ensuring its source to examine its impact, and generally behaving in a more aware manner, but I guess you have an agenda to preach.
Your post didn't include any references to peer reviewed research papers, and you expect anyone to believe you over the article , which did? The full text of the research paper is also available The supplementary information (which as also linked to in the article, and is listed on the pnas page) has a whole lot of statistics listed, if you think the numbers given in the article are wrong, then do the math yourself. Here's another published peer reviewed research paper: Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK (full text is available, not just the abstract) Study shows that meat eating people contribute to global warming about 50% more than vegetarians, and about twice as much as vegans. It also gives environmental impact ratings for different foods, (unfortunately by kilogram rather than by calorie, so could be misleading) Bovine Meat: 68.8, Mutton & Goat Meat: 64.2, Pigmeat:7.9 Crustaceans: 5.4, Fish, Seafood: 5.4, Poultry Meat: 5.4, Eggs: 4.9 So you can make a big difference just by limiting meat consumption to pork, seafood and poultry.
Animals only provide about 3% of the calories needed to raise them, which are in turn usually provided by corn feed. Directly eating the crops is much better, around 30% efficient http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/reports/Global_Food_Report.pdf
HAH. http://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/2agot7/large_oxford_study_the_average_meateater_in_the/civ41md That sensationalist headline is total bullshit. The person's diet contributes twice as much. It says nothing about the contributions to global warming in general. Yes, meat takes more to make, and makes more emissions. No, it is not nearly as significant as the bullshit articles floating around.Study shows that meat eating people contribute to global warming about 50% more than vegetarians, and about twice as much as vegans.
I guess it's like if a study came out and said that drivers of Hummers contribute to global warming 50% more than drivers of Priuses, and 200% more than drivers of Leafs. When considering the footprint of the automobile specifically, that may be correct, but that isn't taking into consideration all the other life style choices which in aggregate, contribute more to a person's overall carbon footprint. Still a 50% reduction in the carbon footprint of your diet is still admirable and a positive thing, I'd say. To me, the bigger issue is that as a consumer, its hard to determine what the carbon footprint of various consumer choices are. It seems like a lot of red tape to require product labeling for carbon footprints like we do for nutrition, but as someone who is concerned about global warming, I'd like the ability to make choices on the consumer level without having to rely on marketers and relatively obscure academic research.
Here you go. Actually in 2012 only 10% of emissions came from agriculture, whereas electricity & transportation combined make up 60%.The EPA reports about ~18% of emissions coming from agriculture in the US. The largest producer is, you guessed it, energy generation (I think, don't have the sources on hand).