Having problems with message search?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16573-eating-less-meat-could-cut-climate-costs.html
Eating less meat could cut climate costs
* 14:49 10 February 2009 by Jim Giles
Cutting back on beefburgers and bacon could wipe $20 trillion off the cost of fighting climate change. That's the dramatic conclusion of a study that totted up the economic costs of modern meat-heavy diets.
The researchers involved say that reducing our intake of beef and pork would lead to the creation of a huge new carbon sink, as vegetation would thrive on unused farmland.
The model takes into account farmland that is used to grow extra food to make up for the lost meat, but that requires less area, so some will be abandoned. Millions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, would also be saved every year due to reduced emissions from farms.
These impacts would lessen the need for expensive carbon-saving technologies, such as "clean coal" power plants, and so save huge sums, say Elke Stehfest of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and colleagues.
Flatulent feeders
Climate-change experts have warned of the high carbon cost of meat for several years.
Beef is particularly damaging. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is released from flatulent cows and by manure as it decays. Furthermore, to produce a kilogram of beef (2.2 pounds), farmers also have to feed a cow 15 kg of grain and 30 kg of forage. Grain requires fertiliser, which is energy intensive to produce.
Stehfest has now weighed the economic impact of beef and other meats against the cost of stabilising carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million - a level that some scientists say is needed to help prevent dangerous droughts and sea level rises.
If eating habits do not change, Stehfest estimates that emissions would have to be cut by two-thirds by 2050, which is likely to cost around $40 trillion.
If, however, the global population shifted to a low-meat diet - defined as 70 grams of beef and 325 grams of chicken and eggs per week - around 15 million square kilometres of farmland would be freed up. Vegetation growing on this land would mop up carbon dioxide. It could alternatively be used to grow bioenergy crops, which would displace fossil fuels.
Supermarket labels
Greenhouse gas emissions would also fall by 10% due to the drop in livestock numbers, she calculates. Together, these impacts would halve the costs of dealing with climate change by 2050.
To help consumers, the environmental cost of meat, in terms of carbon emissions per portion, could also be included in the purchase price, says Stehfest.
The costs sound about right, says Raymond Desjardins of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. However, it may be unfair to compare future farms to current ones, he adds.
Journal reference: Climatic Change (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6)
* * *
http://www.springerlink.com/content/053gx71816jq2648/
Climate benefits of changing diet
Journal Climatic Change
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
ISSN
0165-0009 (Print) 1573-1480 (Online)
DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6
Elke Stehfest1 Contact Information, Lex Bouwman1, 2, Detlef P. van Vuuren1, Michel G. J. den Elzen1, Bas Eickhout1 and Pavel Kabat2
(1)
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Global
Sustainability and Climate, P.O. Box 303, 3720 AH Bilthoven, The
Netherlands
(2) Earth System Science and
Climate Change Group, Wageningen University Research Centre (WUR),
P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Abstract Climate change mitigation policies tend to focus on the energy sector, while the livestock sector receives surprisingly little attention, despite the fact that it accounts for 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 80% of total anthropogenic land use. From a dietary perspective, new insights in the adverse health effects of beef and pork have lead to a revision of meat consumption recommendations. Here, we explored the potential impact of dietary changes on achieving ambitious climate stabilization levels. By using an integrated assessment model, we found a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emission would be reduced substantially. A global transition to a low meat-diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO2-eq. stabilisation target by about 50% in 2050 compared to the reference case. Dietary changes could therefore not only create substantial benefits for human health and global land use, but can also play an important role in future climate change mitigation policies.
Eating less meat could cut climate costs
* 14:49 10 February 2009 by Jim Giles
Cutting back on beefburgers and bacon could wipe $20 trillion off the cost of fighting climate change. That's the dramatic conclusion of a study that totted up the economic costs of modern meat-heavy diets.
The researchers involved say that reducing our intake of beef and pork would lead to the creation of a huge new carbon sink, as vegetation would thrive on unused farmland.
The model takes into account farmland that is used to grow extra food to make up for the lost meat, but that requires less area, so some will be abandoned. Millions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, would also be saved every year due to reduced emissions from farms.
These impacts would lessen the need for expensive carbon-saving technologies, such as "clean coal" power plants, and so save huge sums, say Elke Stehfest of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and colleagues.
Flatulent feeders
Climate-change experts have warned of the high carbon cost of meat for several years.
Beef is particularly damaging. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is released from flatulent cows and by manure as it decays. Furthermore, to produce a kilogram of beef (2.2 pounds), farmers also have to feed a cow 15 kg of grain and 30 kg of forage. Grain requires fertiliser, which is energy intensive to produce.
Stehfest has now weighed the economic impact of beef and other meats against the cost of stabilising carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million - a level that some scientists say is needed to help prevent dangerous droughts and sea level rises.
If eating habits do not change, Stehfest estimates that emissions would have to be cut by two-thirds by 2050, which is likely to cost around $40 trillion.
If, however, the global population shifted to a low-meat diet - defined as 70 grams of beef and 325 grams of chicken and eggs per week - around 15 million square kilometres of farmland would be freed up. Vegetation growing on this land would mop up carbon dioxide. It could alternatively be used to grow bioenergy crops, which would displace fossil fuels.
Supermarket labels
Greenhouse gas emissions would also fall by 10% due to the drop in livestock numbers, she calculates. Together, these impacts would halve the costs of dealing with climate change by 2050.
To help consumers, the environmental cost of meat, in terms of carbon emissions per portion, could also be included in the purchase price, says Stehfest.
The costs sound about right, says Raymond Desjardins of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. However, it may be unfair to compare future farms to current ones, he adds.
Journal reference: Climatic Change (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6)
* * *
http://www.springerlink.com/content/053gx71816jq2648/
Climate benefits of changing diet
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
DOI
Elke Stehfest1 Contact Information, Lex Bouwman1, 2, Detlef P. van Vuuren1, Michel G. J. den Elzen1, Bas Eickhout1 and Pavel Kabat2
(1)
(2)
Abstract Climate change mitigation policies tend to focus on the energy sector, while the livestock sector receives surprisingly little attention, despite the fact that it accounts for 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 80% of total anthropogenic land use. From a dietary perspective, new insights in the adverse health effects of beef and pork have lead to a revision of meat consumption recommendations. Here, we explored the potential impact of dietary changes on achieving ambitious climate stabilization levels. By using an integrated assessment model, we found a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emission would be reduced substantially. A global transition to a low meat-diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO2-eq. stabilisation target by about 50% in 2050 compared to the reference case. Dietary changes could therefore not only create substantial benefits for human health and global land use, but can also play an important role in future climate change mitigation policies.
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only. ***
Offline 
Send Email