All He Is Saying Is 'Give Peas a Chance'

U.N. climate chief urges eating less meat to combat climate change 13

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said this weekend that eating less meat may be the best way for people to reduce their personal carbon emissions. "In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity," he said. Pachauri advised the world's omnivores to "give up meat for one day [per week] initially, and decrease it from there." In 2006, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization analyzed the livestock industry's contribution to climate change and found that its total impact worldwide (including deforestation, grazing, and the methane-intensive burps and farts of livestock) contributed more to global warming than the entire transport sector. "I'm not in favor of mandating things like this, but if there were a [global] price on carbon perhaps the price of meat would go up and people would eat less [of it]," Pachauri said.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Boyscientist Posted 1:17 am
    08 Sep 2008

    Love your titleI heard this on interview on NPR.  It's a great point but I think the message will fail if they ask us to give up meat once a day.  Instead we should focus on eating less meat per meal and utilizing forms of agriculture that can produce protein with reduced environmental impact.  Instead of corn, hogs and beef, perhaps fish culture works better.
    mushy peas and catfish.

    Permalink

  2. Boyscientist Posted 1:54 am
    08 Sep 2008

    CorrectionOf course I meant to say one day per week not once a day.  We wastefully eat meat almost every meal and it kills us. I'm not vegan at all but we 'mericans eat meals that can be described as a "heart attack on a plate"

    Permalink

  3. globetrotter855 Posted 2:14 am
    08 Sep 2008

    Rule out the meatheadsUnfortunately this will probably fall on deaf ears to active gym goers and people trying to build muscle. Protein is essential for muscle growth and repair and meat is viewed as the most viable source for protein currently.

    Permalink

  4. Tasermons Partner Posted 6:58 am
    08 Sep 2008

    Good idea......but like most good ideas, most people will ignore it.

    Permalink

  5. spaceshaper's avatar

    spaceshaper Posted 9:36 am
    08 Sep 2008

    meathead athletes take noticehttp://almostvegetarian.blogspot.com/2008/02/famous-veget ...

    Permalink

  6. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 10:03 am
    08 Sep 2008

    You Gotta Get From A2BUltramotor's A2B Electric Bike:
    http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid203719194/b ...

    Permalink

  7. Jonas Posted 6:56 pm
    08 Sep 2008

    Meat-printersI know the anti-science peepz here at Grist will freak out again. But the alternative to old school meat from livestock, is meat from the meat-printer.
    You can easily produce high quality steaks from stem cells. It solves all problems all at once (at least if you do the effort of thinking it through).
    Meat printers are here (google), so it's not some fancy idea.
    The only problem I see is animal welfare people becoming jobless. But then, they will soon begin to demand human rights for stem cells, agar, sugar, and perhaps even for electricity - the ingredients needed to make in-vitro meat.
    The meat printer will become as ubiquitous as the micro wave oven. You can download meat templates from the internet. Just press "print" and there you are.

    Permalink

  8. Boyscientist Posted 11:35 pm
    08 Sep 2008

    Meat printer doesn't existI checked Google like Jonas suggested.  There is nothing about a meat printer.  There is no meat printer. You cannot download meat templates.
    Scientist have figured out how to structure some tissues but muscle tissue isn't mentioned as far as I can find.  It might work for making new noses

    or ears for human replacements.
    Sorry Jonas the idea you can EASILY grow your own stem cells doesn't wash.  And the printer will cost as much as your car.  This is typical media hype.
    When you can "print meat" cheaper than feeding rabbits leftover garden scraps let me know.

    Permalink

  9. Tasermons Partner Posted 3:55 am
    09 Sep 2008

    Rolls eyes...The only problem I see is animal welfare people becoming jobless.
    Me thinks that the ranching industry and lobby might be little more peeved 'bout job loss than the animal welfare people would be.

    Permalink

  10. kevcon Posted 4:33 am
    09 Sep 2008

    Glovetrotter check out these ahem 'meat'-headsMac Danzig-ultimate fighter

    http://www.mensfitness.com/fitness/288
    Kenneth G. Willams - natural bodybuilder

    http://veganmusclepower.org/
    Pat Reeves - powerlifter

    http://www.veganbodybuilding.org/
    and many more at
    http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/
    with apologies to Mr. T...

    I pity the fool who thinks they need to eat poisoned dead flesh to build muscle and be strong and fit.
    Real men have compassion for animals and care about the environment.
    peas!

    Permalink

  11. Wolverine Posted 10:11 am
    09 Sep 2008

    Who's Anti-Science?Sorry, but the fact is that no one needs meat for protein.  You can get all the protein you need from plants, and it's healthier, too.  The only reason people need animal products in food is for vitamin B-12, and you only need that maybe once per month.
    You science worshipers should stop being such anti-environmental consumers and learn to simplify things.

    Permalink

  12. Wolverine Posted 3:02 am
    11 Sep 2008

    And Another ThingThe claim that cattle produce a significant amount of greenhouse gases is unproven and is a ridiculous reason for refraining from, or reducing, eating meat.  There are many excellent reasons to reduce or eliminate meat consumption -- farm animals are non-natives, free range cattle and sheep turn grasslands into deserts, cattle pollute watersheds, and destroy riparian areas, and ranchers fence formerly wild areas, bring in invasive species to feed the cattle, and kill everything they consider a threat to or competition with their cattle -- but reducing GHG emissions is not one of them.

    Permalink

  13. kevcon Posted 3:35 am
    11 Sep 2008

    Wolverine good pts. re: enviro impacts of meat,butI don't understand your assertion that the cattle industry's significant contribution to GHG is unproven.  From some of the reports I've read, including the one noted in this Grist artcle, they indicate that the animal flesh production and distribution sector is the biggest GHG emitter.

    Please advise why you don't think these studies prove this to be so? Here a couple of links to  review:

    Diet, Energy and Global Warming - University of Chicago report:

    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutriEI.pd ....
    Livestock's Long Shadow - U.N. report

    http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/ ...

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement