As you’re biting into that nice, juicy king-size burger, have you ever thought how much you’re contributing to global warming?

I hadn’t. Cattle, though, are a major problem for the environment. As cows are busy munching away in their pastures, their multiple stomachs are producing methane.

Methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas, 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide for global warming. According to The Journal of Animal Science, livestock produce between 250 and 500 litres of methane every single day! At the top end of the estimate, that enough to fill 250 large bottles of Coke.

And what’s worse, there are estimated to be 1.5 billion livestock around the globe. If the average animal produces 350 litres of methane daily, then that’s 525 billion litres of methane being released into the atmosphere each day. And then there are about a billion sheep and 800 million goats.

What about pigs? There are a billion pigs, but they produce much less methane than cows.

As countries have got richer, demand for meat has increased in the last 50 years by about 500 per cent.

The livestock sector is by far the single largest use by humans of land. Grazing occupies 26 percent of the Earth‘s terrestrial surface, while feed crop production requires about a third of all arable land.

Expansion of grazing land for livestock is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America. Some 70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture, and feed crops cover a large part of the reminder. About 70 percent of all grazing land in dry areas is considered degraded, mostly because of overgrazing, compaction and erosion attributable to livestock activity.

There are other serious problems with livestock that contribute to global warming. The United Nations’ Food & Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) estimated that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport.

Livestock farming accounts for nine percent of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, most of it due to expansion of pastures and arable land for feed crops. It generates even bigger shares of emissions of other gases with greater potential to warm the atmosphere: as much as 37 percent of methane from humans’ activities, mostly from fermentation by cows and other ruminants, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide created by man’s activities, mostly from manure.

According to the UN FAO, the average American eats about 275 pounds of meat per year (more than any other country). The average Chinese eats 108 pounds per year (Earth Policy Insitute, 2005). According to a 2005 FAO study on meat consumption between 1998 – 2002, the average meat consumption per Chinese is 52 kg, compared to Americans at 125 kg, and Britain at 80 kg.   note:  there are smaller countries which (on average, per person) consume a little more meat than the US – 300 mil. people (for example: New Zealand – 4 mil. people, Denmark 5.5 mil. people, and some countries which consume around the same amount of meat. If the whole world ate meat at the American rate, only 2/5 of the world’s population (2.5 billion people) would be fed (Lester Brown).

Some countries are taking the problem seriously. For example, Germany’s environment agency has recommended that Germans should eat less meat, if they want to lower their carbon footprint and stop global warming.

Speaking at Berlin’s Grüne Woche (Green Week), Andreas Troge, president of the UBA (Germany’s environment agency) said:

“We must rethink our high meat consumption. I recommend people return to the Sunday roast and to an orientation of their eating habits around those of Mediterranean countries.”

Troge said that agriculture caused 15% of Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions. Meat production, he explained, was the most energy-intensive form of farming. Germans derive a high percentage of their calories from meat, 39% compared to the Italians’ 25%.

The US Environmental Protection Agency wanted to tax cattle, but this plan seems to have been dropped after protests from the powerful farming lobby.

So next time I’m in the supermarket, Quorn burgers are going in my basket!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

‘We should be treating the whole issue of climate change with a far greater degree of priority’
- Prince Charles, 27 October 2005

Pity then that Prince Charles doesn’t heed his own advice and look at his own carbon footprint and its effect on global warming..

In April 2009, the heir to the British throne took a five day trip around Europe to promote the UK Government’s global warming policies. Unfortunately, he chartered a private Airbus A319 to transport him and his entourage between Rome, Venice and Berlin.

Easyjet uses this aircraft type to carry 156 passengers. Prince Charles’ plane on the other hand, was only carrying him, his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall plus ten staff in a luxury interior.

The carbon footprint of the four flights totalling 2200 miles is estimated to be nearly 53 tons. In comparison, a normal person’s annual carbon footprint is 11 tons! If each member of the party had flown on a scheduled flight on this aircraft type then they would have emitted a massive thirteen times less carbon dioxide. So much for reducing global warming!

The controversy comes less than two months after Prince Charles’ supposedly eco-awareness of global warming trip to South America in February. A chartered jet was again used to fly the royal couple plus 14 staff on a ten-day trip to Brazil, Chile and Ecuador. Prince Charles’ office claimed that the jet was necessary because of the Prince’s tight schedule.

Prince Charles’ attitude has caused outrage amongst Members of Parliament. The Transport Spokesman for the LibDems, Norman Baker put it best: ‘Prince Charles seems not to realise that he enormously weakens his case for tackling climate change by his own profligate and careless habits.
‘It is deeply unattractive to have somebody lecturing you on climate change when they are one of the greatest emitters of carbon themselves.
‘When you couple Prince Charles’s private jets with Prince Andrew’s helicopters, you cannot help but think that the Royal Family is part of the carbon problem rather than part of the carbon solution.’

If Prince Charles wants his views on global warming to be taken seriously, he needs to consider his air travel. Convenience is not a good enough excuse, especially if Prince Charles expects others to make sacrifices for the sake of global warming.

Instead, he should be promoting new technologies to reduce global warming, like video conferencing, that reduce the need for air travel. Perhaps he hasn’t heard of Skype yet.

Jetsetting by Prince Charles, whatever he likes to think, will not make one jot of difference to solving the problem of climate change. Actually, he’s making it by making much it worse by emitting unnecessarily-large amounts of carbon and increasing global warming!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

]]>