<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Roni Neff explains how the media miss the story on food’s connection to climate change]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Peter Donovan http://www.grist.org/article/wheres-the-beef/ Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:58:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/wheres-the-beef/1 carbon cycle

Most of the thinking and writing on these issues deals with small slivers of the carbon cycle. Only about 3% of the annual global flux of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is from fossil fuel burning, for example. See http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carb ...

Though ruminant livestock do emit methane, the methane concentration in the atmosphere has quit growing, in spite of livestock numbers increasing 17 million annually according to FAO. See
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/aph/stories/2008-atmospher ...

Who killed the climate? Was it Colonel Mustard in the dining room with the hamburger? Or was it Dr. Fossil in the driveway with the exhaust pipe?

None of the above. We need to understand the carbon cycle.

According to the IPCC, complete reduction of "carbon dioxide emissions" (they mean the anthropogenic part) will not get us below 350 ppm for many generations. See
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-10.3.html

And yet this is what many are advocating.

In order to have a reasonable chance for climate security, we need to understand the carbon cycle. The 96% or so that is not considered anthropogenic by the IPCC (though much of it is) is the key to the opportunity. The biggest carbon sink over which we have control is the soil, bigger than atmosphere and vegetation combined, and holds carbon for much longer on average. The soil carbon pool can be rapidly enhanced with regenerative agricultural practices, which include managed grazing.

Though no-till grain farming is less destructive to soil carbon than tillage, and can build some soil organic matter (which is 50-59% carbon), a continuous cover of perennial grasses will usually build more soil carbon.

As Michael Pollan stresses in Omnivore's Dilemma, before we answer the question what should we eat, we need to answer the questions, what are we eating, and where does it come from? In terms of its impact on the carbon cycle, grassfed beef is a generally superior choice to rice. Instead of higher or lower on the food chain, consider the impact on soil organic matter.



]]> carbon cycle

Most of the thinking and writing on these issues deals with small slivers of the carbon cycle. Only about 3% of the annual global flux of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is from fossil fuel burning, for example. See http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carb ...

Though ruminant livestock do emit methane, the methane concentration in the atmosphere has quit growing, in spite of livestock numbers increasing 17 million annually according to FAO. See
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/aph/stories/2008-atmospher ...

Who killed the climate? Was it Colonel Mustard in the dining room with the hamburger? Or was it Dr. Fossil in the driveway with the exhaust pipe?

None of the above. We need to understand the carbon cycle.

According to the IPCC, complete reduction of "carbon dioxide emissions" (they mean the anthropogenic part) will not get us below 350 ppm for many generations. See
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-10.3.html

And yet this is what many are advocating.

In order to have a reasonable chance for climate security, we need to understand the carbon cycle. The 96% or so that is not considered anthropogenic by the IPCC (though much of it is) is the key to the opportunity. The biggest carbon sink over which we have control is the soil, bigger than atmosphere and vegetation combined, and holds carbon for much longer on average. The soil carbon pool can be rapidly enhanced with regenerative agricultural practices, which include managed grazing.

Though no-till grain farming is less destructive to soil carbon than tillage, and can build some soil organic matter (which is 50-59% carbon), a continuous cover of perennial grasses will usually build more soil carbon.

As Michael Pollan stresses in Omnivore's Dilemma, before we answer the question what should we eat, we need to answer the questions, what are we eating, and where does it come from? In terms of its impact on the carbon cycle, grassfed beef is a generally superior choice to rice. Instead of higher or lower on the food chain, consider the impact on soil organic matter.



]]> Comment #2 by grussell http://www.grist.org/article/wheres-the-beef/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:13:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/wheres-the-beef/2 Carbon cycle

Why do people keep saying grass fed beef is
somehow benign? Grass fed cattle produces Grass about 3 times the methane of grain fed cattle and the cost to global biodiversity is huge. They are responsible for 70% of Amazon deforestation and a less precisely known but huge portion of Indonesian deforestation.

Livestock's Long Shadow has the following information.
Animal food production consumes the output of 1/3 of all
arable land + 3,400 million grazing hectares + the
entire output of all fisheries and produces just 17% of global calories. Sure you can produce meat sustainably, like you can hunt whales sustainably, the question is how much ... and the answer is very, very little --- which is fine by Pollan, but probably not by people who like to use his views to spruik for the meat industry.

Lastly, methane levels are now on the rise
again.





]]> Carbon cycle

Why do people keep saying grass fed beef is
somehow benign? Grass fed cattle produces Grass about 3 times the methane of grain fed cattle and the cost to global biodiversity is huge. They are responsible for 70% of Amazon deforestation and a less precisely known but huge portion of Indonesian deforestation.

Livestock's Long Shadow has the following information.
Animal food production consumes the output of 1/3 of all
arable land + 3,400 million grazing hectares + the
entire output of all fisheries and produces just 17% of global calories. Sure you can produce meat sustainably, like you can hunt whales sustainably, the question is how much ... and the answer is very, very little --- which is fine by Pollan, but probably not by people who like to use his views to spruik for the meat industry.

Lastly, methane levels are now on the rise
again.





]]> Comment #3 by EddieMill http://www.grist.org/article/wheres-the-beef/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:59:47 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/wheres-the-beef/3 Energy and organic agriculture

Great--

Here's your next project: how does the choice to choose organically grown produce impact climate change emissions?

Food produced in a sustainable way does not just impact local environment in improving water quality, soil quality, etc.  It also uses significantly less energy to produce the same amount of food.  Remember, the energy source to grow food is ultimately the Sun, but much of the energy of our modern agriculture system relies on fertilizers (made from natural gas), machinery, and relies on pesticides (from petroleum) to produce.  Nearly 10 calories of fossil energy go into production and transport of 1 calorie of food, in a system that in 1940 used 2.3 calories per calorie. As Michael Pollan put it, "we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases."

In a preliminary model I did, I came up with about a 70% energy savings in a smallholder organic farm.  This is a huge deal!  This means that we may not have to cut back or change our consumption patterns to fight climate change, it may be as easily as demanding better produced food from the source.

What do you think?

-Eddie Miller
Boston University
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_80poU45zzE').innerHTML = output; //]]>

]]> Energy and organic agriculture

Great--

Here's your next project: how does the choice to choose organically grown produce impact climate change emissions?

Food produced in a sustainable way does not just impact local environment in improving water quality, soil quality, etc.  It also uses significantly less energy to produce the same amount of food.  Remember, the energy source to grow food is ultimately the Sun, but much of the energy of our modern agriculture system relies on fertilizers (made from natural gas), machinery, and relies on pesticides (from petroleum) to produce.  Nearly 10 calories of fossil energy go into production and transport of 1 calorie of food, in a system that in 1940 used 2.3 calories per calorie. As Michael Pollan put it, "we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases."

In a preliminary model I did, I came up with about a 70% energy savings in a smallholder organic farm.  This is a huge deal!  This means that we may not have to cut back or change our consumption patterns to fight climate change, it may be as easily as demanding better produced food from the source.

What do you think?

-Eddie Miller
Boston University
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_80poU45zzE').innerHTML = output; //]]>

]]> Comment #4 by CyberBrook http://www.grist.org/article/wheres-the-beef/ Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:55:44 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/wheres-the-beef/4 Meat Eating and Global Warming


There's a web site called "Meat Eating and Global Warming" that has a bunch of linked articles on this subject.

It's at:
http://www.ivu.org/members/globalwarming.html

Also see:

Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters (it does!)
http://www.brook.com/veg




]]> Meat Eating and Global Warming


There's a web site called "Meat Eating and Global Warming" that has a bunch of linked articles on this subject.

It's at:
http://www.ivu.org/members/globalwarming.html

Also see:

Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters (it does!)
http://www.brook.com/veg




]]> Comment #5 by CyberBrook http://www.grist.org/article/wheres-the-beef/ Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:20:20 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/wheres-the-beef/5 the take away line from this article

"At the individual level, it seems pretty clear that the No. 1 thing that can be done is to eat less meat and dairy."

]]> the take away line from this article

"At the individual level, it seems pretty clear that the No. 1 thing that can be done is to eat less meat and dairy."

]]>