Health and Nutrition

Foto: casa de los azulejos, Mexico DF

Climate change, nutrition, greenhouse gases and meat on the plate: we are all burping and farting greenhouse gases.

Denis Leary said that “Not eating meat is a decision, eating meat is an instinct”

With the recently published commentary in Nature Climate Change (NCC, Vol 4 2014, pages 2-4, W.J. Ripple et al), the recent report of the German SRU (German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU), “Nitrogen, strategies for resolving an urgent environmental problem”, January 2015) and the report published by the UNEP (assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production, 2010) we need no “cowspiracy” ( http://www.cowspiracy.com ) to know that what we choose to eat has enormous consequences for climate change.

The livestock sector is responsible for 14.5% of all human derived (anthropogenic) emissions. That is a huge lot of emissions, somehow equivalent to 7.1 Gigatons per year (CO2 equivalent) compared to the 49 Gigatons per year of the total world emissions.

You may wonder how our romantic view of the peaceful cows grazing on the meadows can produce this enormous 7.1 Gigatons of emissions. Hard to believe, but real. First is the Methane (a sort of inflammable gas) produced in the multi-chambered stomach of the ruminants. It is a process called “enteric fermentation” where Methane is produced as a side-product of the microbial digestion of the plants. Mind you, there are 3.6 billion domestic ruminants on earth and their population increases 2 million per month. It is hard to imagine the amount of Methane erupted out by 3.6 billion ruminants farting and burping together. Second is the usual carbon dioxide, CO2 emissions derived from the agricultural exploitation (fuel, heating, transport...). Last but not least, is the release of nitro compounds derived from fertilisers, manure..etc.

About 44% of the 7.1 Gigatons of emissions are originating from this enteric fermentation, as well as manure...etc in the form of Methane. Another 27% comes from the usual emissions deriving from working the land (fuel, etc.) in the form of C02 (carbon dioxide) and another 29% in the form of nitrous oxide (NO2) from fertilisers and manure (W.J. Ripple et al, Nature Climate Change, vol 4 p 2-4). With respect to the later, the above mentioned report from the German Advisory Council is very clear about the risks associated with the over-production of nitrogen containing products (fertilisers, reactive Nitrogen compounds released into the atmosphere after coal combustion, etc.) and the health hazards and the acidification and nitrification of the oceans and the soil.

What mankind is doing is utterly absurd. We dedicate 26% of all terrestrial surface to grazing areas for livestock and 33% of all the arable land is reserved to produce feeding crops for livestock. This competes directly with the land dedicated to the production of crops for human consumption. Nearly 900 million people suffer from malnutrition today, and the population will duplicate in the next fifty to hundred years. How will they feed themselves? Producing meat and using crops for feeding livestock will not help us.

In addition, there is more and more de-forestation in order to release more surfaces for grazing and plant more crops in order to feed more ruminants....Deforestation has a direct impact in global warming as plants are the only living being capable of sequestering C02 out of the atmosphere and reducing its level.

COP21 and the media have given no attention to the agricultural livestock industry. Probably because of the strong cultural roots of meet consumption and the enormous financial interests behind and the political lobbing associated with the agricultural sector. The farming industry is usually over-protected (see for example the European Union) and very few dare to speak openly against it. That is why the focus for reducing carbon emissions has been put on fossil fuels, transport, industrial processes..etc rather than the livestock production.

Methane, mentioned before as one of the main non-CO2 greenhouse gas produced by livestock has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere (+\- 9 years, NCC, Vol 4 2014, pages 2-4, W.J. Ripple et al ). Consequently, any action taken to reduce it now will have a direct effect short term. On the contrary, C02 may last forever. According to University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer "The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge, longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far." (Nature Reports Climate Change published online, 20 November 2008). Therefore reducing C02 in the atmosphere will take much longer, and the actions we take today to reduce C02 emissions (for example by using less fossil fuels) will only prevent the worsening of the present situation, but will not help to reduce the present C02 levels in the next centuries.

Reducing the numbers of the 3.6 billion domestic ruminants won't be easy....it requires a cultural change at the individual level and integrity, leadership and vision at the political level, something which is rather scarce today....

Things are very clear: reducing meat consumption will have a rapid and direct effect in the reduction of carbon emissions (methane and nitrous oxide) and a direct positive repercussion on global warming and health. The use of grazing surfaces for re-forestation, and the reduction of deforestation rates will have a positive effect in the sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere. The use of crops for human consumption will reduce malnutrition.

Next time we eat a terderloin, roast beef or T-bone steak.....etc we should think twice before enjoying the flesh. Controlling our instinct and deciding to care more for the human population, for the global environment and for our own health is perhaps the way to go. We are all burping and farting greenhouse gases.

All4oneworld, February 2016

"The livestock sector is responsible for 14.5% of all human derived (anthropogenic) emissions. That is a huge lot of emissions, somehow equivalent to 7.1 Gigatons per year (CO2 equivalent) compared to the 49 Gigatons per year of the total world emissions".

"What mankind is doing is utterly absurd. We dedicate 26% of all terrestrial surface to grazing areas for livestock and 33% of all the arable land is reserved to produce feeding crops for livestock. This competes directly with the land dedicated to the production of crops for human consumption. Nearly 900 million people suffer from malnutrition today, and the population will duplicate in the next fifty to hundred years"

"Things are very clear: reducing meat consumption will have a rapid and direct effect in the reduction of carbon emissions (methane and nitrous oxide) and a direct positive repercussion on global warming and health. The use of grazing surfaces for re-forestation, and the reduction of deforestation rates will have a positive effect in the sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere. The use of crops for human consumption will reduce malnutrition."

"Next time we eat a terderloin, roast beef or T-bone steak.....etc we should think twice before enjoying the flesh. Controlling our instinct and deciding to care more for the human population, for the global environment and for our own health is perhaps the way to go. We are all burping and farting greenhouse gases."