 |
|
 |
|
| |
Planet Earth: Our Loving Home
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri-Global Warning: The Impact of Meat Production and Consumption on Climate Change
Part 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Part 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| If you want to add this video in your blog or on your website, Please copy above embed tag and paste it : |
|
Welcome, caring viewers, to Planet
Earth: Our Loving Home. To raise awareness of the profound and
devastating environmental effects of livestock-raising, the UK-based
non-profit group Compassion in World Farming hosted a lecture and panel
discussion on the topic in London, England.
The
event, held in September 2008, brought together over 400 participants
from government, the diplomatic sector, think tanks and research
organizations.
Panel
participants featured Dr. Henning Steinfeld, Chief Livestock Specialist
of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and co-author
of the well-known 2006 United Nations report “Livestock’s Long Shadow:
Environmental Issues and Options.”
The
panel also included Dr. Robert Watson, chief scientist of Britain’s
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Felicity Lawrence,
British author of best-selling books on the food industry, Professor
John Powles, senior lecturer in public health medicine at Cambridge
University, England and Compassion in World Farming’s farm-animal
welfare expert Joyce D’Silva.
The
lecture, entitled “Global Warning: the Impact of Meat Production and
Consumption on Climate Change” was given by the esteemed Dr. Rajendra
Pachauri, chair of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change and a vegetarian.
Media
reports on the role of meat consumption in driving climate change have
increased significantly since Dr. Pachauri’s call in 2008 for the world
to eat less meat to counter global warming.
In honor of Earth Day we now feature excerpts from Dr. Pachauri’s compelling talk.
Dr. Pachauri :
 What
I’m going to do to start with is give you a few major findings from the
Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change). Then I’ll deal with the subject of consumption of meat
and its role in contributing to emissions of greenhouse gases, and then
talk about a few means by which we should bring about a reduction.
This
is just a view of changes that have taken place and these are observed
changes in global average temperature, global average sea level and
Northern Hemisphere snow cover. You’d notice over here that this record
of temperature changes, starting with the beginning of
industrialization, has had obvious ups and downs.
That’s
essentially because changes have taken place both as a result of
natural factors as well as human-induced factors. But what is
particularly significant is that in recent decades you see that the
increase in temperature has been much steeper than in previous decades.
Therefore, and then I’ll say a little more about this later,
it’s largely the result of human contributions to the concentration of
greenhouse gases that you find this rapid increase in temperature
that’s taken place in recent decades. And if one looks at the total
increase, the average increase during the 20th century, it amounted to
about 0.74 degrees Celsius.
Direct observations of recent climate change. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report p.3.
Figure
SPM.3. Observed changes in (a) global average surface temperature, (b)
global average sea level from tide gauge (blue) and satellite data
(red) and (c) Northern Hemisphere snow cover for March-April.
Corresponding
to that, the middle diagram gives you global average sea level changes.
This, if I might mention, during the 20th century amounted to about 17
centimeters. Now you could say 17 centimeters is not a lot, but if you
are living in the Maldives Islands or on the low-lying country of
Bangladesh, then 17 centimeters, which is pretty close to a foot, is
really a lot.
You don’t even have to wait till inundation of
that entire land area takes place as a result of sea level rise, but
purely because of coastal flooding, because of storm surges and
cyclones, there would be much greater devastation that would take place
on account of a higher sea.
Northern Hemisphere snow cover has
been going down. You see this particularly in the case of the Arctic
region, which is warming at about twice the rate of the rest of the
globe.
(IPCC Fourth Assessment Report p.7) Continued
greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further
warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the
21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed
during the 20th century. The best estimate for the low scenario is
1.8°C, and the best estimate for the high scenario is 4.0°C. WG1 {10.3}
(SPM p.15)
Multi-model averages and assessed ranges for surface
warming. Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming
(relative to 1980–1999) for the scenarios A2, A1B and B1, shown as
continuations of the 20th century simulations. Shading denotes the ±1
standard deviation range of individual model annual averages. The
orange line is for the experiment where concentrations were held
constant at year 2000 values. The grey bars at right indicate the best
estimate (solid line within each bar) and the likely range assessed for
the six SRES marker scenarios. The assessment of the best estimate and
likely ranges in the grey bars includes the AOGCMs in the left part of
the figure, as well as results from a hierarchy of independent models
and observational constraints.
Now in the Fourth
Assessment Report we’ve come up with projections of temperature
increases by the end of this century, and naturally, based on scenarios
of economic growth, technology changes and other factors, there’s a
whole range of outcomes that one can project. Corresponding to that we
get a range of these temperature increases by the end of the century,
right from 1.1 degrees Celsius to 6.4 degrees Celsius.
But
we’ve come up with two so-called best estimates, one at the lower end,
which we estimated at 1.8 degrees Celsius, and at the upper end about
four degrees Celsius. I might say that even the 1.8 degrees Celsius
increase does provide some cause for alarm, because that combined with
the 0.74 degree increase that took place in the 20th century would add
up to over 2.5 degrees Celsius.
In looking at the impacts of
climate change, we’ve now come to the conclusion that a 2.5 degree
increase in temperature will cause impacts that clearly would be quite
unacceptable on any basis whatsoever, particularly on the basis of
equity, because some of the worst affected regions in the world, are
those that are hardly responsible for having caused the problem.
These
are regions where you have widespread poverty. There’s absolutely no
infrastructure or capacity by which they might be able to withstand the
impacts of climate change. So the point I’m trying to make is that we
really have to do something about the current trends, and we have to
bring about some major changes by which we can take care of the future
of this planet.
Global
atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide
(N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since
1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores
spanning many thousands of years.Global
GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial
times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004
Dr. Pachauri :
This
gives you a picture of the way emissions have grown since the 1970s. Of
course, it’s obvious that the largest source of increase has been from
CO2 emissions, based on the use of fossil fuels. There is, of course,
also an increase in other sources of carbon dioxide like deforestation,
which is quite considerable, decay of organic matter and peat and so
on. Then you have other gases like methane and N2O from agriculture and
others.
Now if one wants, to get into further detail on how
much of these emissions are accounted for from production of meat, then
we would really have to look at some numbers that I’d like to place
before you.
Unfortunately, the growth in global daily
availability of calories per capita has not resolved the food
insecurity and malnutrition in poor countries, and in fact has
increased pressure on the environment.
Now in recent months,
as you’re aware, there’s been a substantial increase in food prices.
And for some countries and societies where almost 80 to 90 percent of
the household income goes for buying food, this really spells disaster.
And as a result, we’ve had demonstrations, we’ve had protests in
several parts of the world. But what is particularly sad is the fact
that decades of effort to wipe out poverty have really been washed out
by what has happened in recent months.
So it’s important for
us to understand the inequitable and unequal nature of distribution of
food. Even though in the aggregate the world is now consuming a huge
quantity of calories, both at per capita as well as aggregate terms,
its distribution leaves much to be desired. During the last four
decades agricultural land gained almost 500-million hectares from
forests and other land uses.
Recently I was in Brazil, about
two months ago, and I was invited to speak at the senate over there,
and Madam Marina Silva, who used to be the Minister of the Environment,
and other senators told me that they’re really concerned about the rate
at which deforestation of the Amazon region took place last year.
It
seems to be increasing year after year. So I mean, what we have to
worry about is clearing our forest land for agriculture and related
purposes. An additional 500-million hectares is projected to be
converted into agriculture in the period up to 2020, mostly in Latin
America and Sub-Saharan Africa.
If we look at accounting of
emissions from agriculture, basically from livestock production, we
have 80% of the emissions, total emissions from agriculture, being
accounted for by livestock production. It amounts to 18% of all
greenhouse gas emissions, which is shown over here.
And I’m
using data that’s been provided by the FAO (Food and Agricultural
Organization). Since people found out about this talk that I was going
to give here today, I’ve received a number of emails from people that I
respect, saying that the 18% figure is an underestimate, it’s a low
estimate and in actual fact it’s much higher.
McMichael
A.J., Powles J., Butler C. and Uauy R., 2007. Food, livestock
production, energy, climate change, and health. The Lancet 370: 9594,
pp 1253 - 1263
If we look at the proportion of
greenhouse-gas emissions from different parts of livestock production,
a good part comes from deforestation and desertification, about 35.4%,
then the manure, both direct and indirect, because do remember that a
large part of food grain production goes into feeding animals that are
essentially used for meat.
And there’s enteric fermentation
which is also quite large, 25%, and other sources, all of which is
shown over here in broad terms.
Now producing 1kilogram of
beef, I believe, leads to emissions of greenhouse gases with a warming
potential equivalent to 36.4 kilogram of CO2, which releases
fertilizing compounds equivalent of 340 grams of sulfur dioxide, 59
grams of phosphate, which consumes 169 megajoules of energy.
And
one kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of
CO2 emitted by the average European driver, per car, for every 250
kilometers and it burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for 20
days.
Now again, let’s look at the inequity of the situation,
and I’ll say a little more about this later. There are 1.6-billion
people in this world who don’t have access to electricity, and have
never possessed a single light bulb in their homes. That to me is a
huge tragedy, placed as we are in the 21st century.
So I’m not
saying that a reduction in emissions over here will translate into
lighting of the homes of people who don’t have electricity today, but
it just brings out the stark contrast between the situation in
prosperous societies and those that are really deprived.
In
addition to requesting people reduce or eliminate meat consumption, Dr.
Pachauri is asking that the people of the developed world to reach out
to assist those 1.6 billion people on the planet that have no access to
electricity. The Indian non-profit The Energy and Resources Institute
(TERI), for which he serves as Director-General, is helping these
disadvantaged persons build better lives by making solar lanterns and
flashlights available through TERI’s Light a Billion Lives Campaign.
US
Dept Agriculture (USDA) Recommended Daily Amount (RDA) of meat is 5.5
to 6 ounces (170 g) pp per day. The World Cancer Research Fund report
(2007) recommends only 11 ounces (300gm) red meat a WEEK for a public
health goal and under 18 oz (500 gm) per week for personal goals.
Dr. Pachauri:
Over
two thirds of the energy goes toward producing and transporting the
animals’ feed. Now this is a significant figure. And this clearly
points to the concept of factory farming of meat products. These are of
course additional sources of greenhouse gases from meat consumption.
Meat
typically requires cooking at high temperatures for long periods. You
can eat vegetables without cooking and sometimes it’s probably
healthier to do that because you retain all the nutrition that’s there
in vegetable products. And a large proportion of meat also becomes
waste products: bones, fat, past the date spoiled products and so on,
which are likely to end up on landfills and incinerated.
So
that’s an additional source of emissions that we need to take into
account. If we look at two types of equivalent meals, let us say you
compare a 6 ounce beefsteak [170 grams] with the meal that’s shown at
the top, one cup of broccoli. One cup eggplant, 4 ounces of
cauliflower, [113 grams] 8 ounces of rice. [226 grams] Now if you look
at what each of these two diets implies, one is associated with 0.4
pounds of CO2 [181 grams] equivalent emissions and the 6 ounce
beefsteak [170 grams] amounts to 10 pounds [4535 grams] of CO2
equivalent, which is almost 25 times as much.
The livestock
sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land.
Livestock production accounts for 70% of all agricultural land and 30%
of the world’s surface land area. And 70% of previous forested land in
the Amazon is occupied by cattle pastures, and crops for animal feed
cover a large part of the remainder.
I was following the
Brazilian economy almost 15 to 20 years ago and you would recall that
there was a period in the 1980s when Brazil had a huge foreign debt,
something like US$120 billion dollars at that point of time. And one of
the means by which they decided to liquidate that and neutralize it was
by converting a large area of forest land into pasture land.
That’s
when the whole problem started, but it is continued. Brazil is not
alone; there are several other countries in the world that have done
the same. Twenty percent of pasture land is degraded because of
overgrazing, compaction, and erosion. So you know much of it then
becomes unfit for any kind of cultivation. Other environmental impacts
of livestock: amount of water needed to produce one kilogram of maize
is 900 liters, rice, 3000 liters, chicken, 3900 (liters), pork,
4900(liters), and beef a whopping 15,500 liters.
So it’s also
intensive in the use of water if you take the entire cycle. Livestock
is responsible for 64% of ammonia emissions which contribute to acid
rain. Livestock is among the largest sectoral source of land and water
pollution with nitrates and phosphorous from sluddy and silage which
runs off and from the use of nitrogen fertilizers.
So if one
takes the sum total of all these impacts, then clearly, we have not
really accounted for all the environmental impacts of meat and its
production and consumption. Impacts of livestock on food availability.
Well, one third of the world’s cereal harvest and over 90% of soya is
used for animal feed, despite inherent inefficiencies.
It
takes close to 10 kilograms of animal feed to produce 1 kilogram of
beef and 4 to 5.5 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of pork, and
2.1 to 3 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of poultry meat. Now
all of this…
is really happening on a much larger scale than
was the case, say even two or three decades ago. And even in my
country, in India, the poultry industry is really booming. Much of it
is based on imported grains that are used for feeding the poultry
stock.
And I’ve been going to China for several years. My
first visit there was 1981, when I think most of China used to consume
pork and of course seafood. But today China has had a major increase in
consumption of meat. So typically what’s happening is all around the
world, where incomes increase, people are shifting from vegetable to
animal proteins and meat consumption.
Now a farmer can feed up
to 30 persons throughout the year on one hectare with vegetables,
fruits, cereals and vegetable fats. If the same area is used for the
production of eggs, milk or meat, the number of persons fed varies from
5 to 10. So there is significant of difference there.
Dr. Pachauri :
But
this is the way meat production has been increasing over a period of
time. In 2006, farmers produced 276 million tons of meat, 5 times as
much as in the 1950’s. So that’s a very sharp increase.
If we
look at those countries where major increases have taken place, they
are shown here, and of course these are not the only ones, there are
others also, you see some significant changes and increases in
consumption over here, which all add up to contribute to the increase
that’s taking place. this data’s taken from the FAO (Food and
Agricultural Organization).
In
2006 farmers produced an estimated 276 million tons of chicken, pork,
beef, and other meat—four times as much as in 1961. On average, each
person eats twice as much meat as back then, about 43 kilograms.
Worldwatch Institute, State of the world 2008.
Between
1950 and 2000, the world's population doubled from 2.7 to 6.7 billion
people while meat production increased fivefold from 45 to 233 billion
kg per year. [1] Lancet, Food, livestock production, energy, climate
change, and health, 2007: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22410650-12377,00.html
If
we look at expected trends in the livestock industry, well estimated
doubling of global production of meat, up to 2050, it could go from 229
million tons in 2001 to 465 million tons. This is, of course, is based
on data compiled by Compassion in World Farming, so I’ll run through
these rather quickly because I’m sure there will be a discussion on
these.
So I’ll just skip this numbers. And this again is from
the same organization, Compassion for World Farming. This, on the left
hand side, lists some of the things that are being done to increase
meat output. On the right hand side are listed some of the implications
in terms of what it does, both to the animals themselves, but also to
also ur, what would happen to society at large. Now what I’d like to
say is there is a need for change in consumption patterns.
The
reason why I’m talking about perhaps reducing meat consumption is
because this is something which every individual can do. Often when one
talks about climate change, in every audience, there will be somebody
who asks, “Ok, I accept all this, but what can I do in my personal
life?”
You can tell them about changing light bulbs, going for
compact fluorescent lamps, switching off lights when you move from one
room to the other, walk whenever you can rather than jump into a car,
keep the thermostat at a level which requires you to wear a cardigan
rather than sit with a T-Shirt at the peak of winter, in your den in
the home, and so on. But I believe that what we can do without too much
effort is to reduce meat consumption.
I think that’s a
lifestyle change which each of us has within our powers to bring
about. Reduction in the size of the livestock industry through reduced
consumption is the most effective way of cutting greenhouse gas
emissions.
So. UK and US households waste around 1/3 of the
food they buy. A change in consumption patterns will be required to
achieve a low carbon and sustainable society. Now the power of British
consumers, what would it amount to? Well the average household would
reduce CO2 emissions by more if they halved their meat consumption,
than if they halved their car usage.
So this is an important
fact. A family of four eating a quarter pounder beef burger each, is
responsible for the CO2 emissions equivalent of driving from London to
Cambridge. 16 kilograms of CO2 emissions.
So these are just
some facts that bring out the importance and the implications of
bringing about a reduction in meat consumption. If there are carbon
dioxide emissions taking place as a result of the entire meat cycle,
then I think that cost to society should be internalized and there
should be a tax or whatever.
Now I mentioned earlier that we
have 1.6 billion people in the world who don’t have access to
electricity. Now we could either set up thermal power plants you know,
and burn coal or whatever to provide this electricity.
Even if
we were to do that, a lot of them just can’t afford getting electricity
connection to their homes. So my institute and I have launched a major
program that we call Lighting a Billion Lives. Essentially that’s based
on using photovoltaic technology.
We have devised solar
lanterns and solar torches, which incidentally have been customized to
meet the needs of the rural poor, in rural areas. I think overall what
Gandhi said is relevant in every respect of actions that are required
to combat climate change. “Be the change you want to see in the world.”
HOST:
It
has been our pleasure to share with you excerpts of Dr. Rajendra
Pachauri’s important presentation that documents how the production and
consumption of animal products tremendously fuels climate change here
on Planet Earth: Our Loving Home.
Dr Pachauri lecture Audio and PowerPoint download
Dr Pachauri lecture and Q&A and Dr Pachauri's slideshow
FAO Report Livestock’s Long Shadow download
Full PDF -408-page Report UN
This summary (1-page PDF)
News article with comments (2-page PDF)
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
E-mail this to a Friend
Copy source code 
trackback : 
Eco-Philosopher Yves Paccalet
