1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Climate Change: Meat eating vs. Prius Driving

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by Rae Vynn, Aug 12, 2009.

  1. Rae Vynn

    Rae Vynn Artist In Residence

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    6,038
    707
    0
    Location:
    Tumwater, WA USA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    The Washington Post published an article on the ramifications of dietary choice on the environment:
    The Meat of the Problem
    Here is a snippet:

     
    1 person likes this.
  2. timberwolf

    timberwolf New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    220
    31
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Mmmm, could start eating long-pig as one of my colleagues always like to say. I am cynic and I am assuming this report has one of those hidden agendas, because as the population grows, it has been suggested that the earth would not be able to support billions more people unless we all go veggie.
     
  3. oxnardprof

    oxnardprof Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    249
    17
    0
    Location:
    Oxnard, CA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    I don't think it is necessarily 'either-or'. There are reasons people prefer a vegan diet, and others continue to eat meat because they enjoy the meat, and perhaps it is easier not to change. (I am an omnivore.)

    I have not read the referenced article, but I do believe we may have to look at our model of food production. If meat is produced in smaller farms, with practices that reduce carbon emissions, then undoubtedly there would be a reduce carbon footprint (if we use that as a measure). So, if you wish to reduce your impact, then one of several strageties would be to reduce meats consumption, and to buy meat produced in a sustainable way. The meat will cost more, which will help reduce consumption.

    So, the title of the thread, suggesting that we should make a choice implies that driving a Prius, and reducing fuel consumption is 'green washing' yourself. Instead, drive a Prius, reduce miles driven, reduce air travel, etc.
     
  4. moner

    moner New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    302
    59
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Well, I'm a Prius driver and a 15 year vegetarian (not a vegan, I would starve to death)... pretty much making me a walking stereotype! Good article, meat eating is very inefficient. ;)
     
  5. Rae Vynn

    Rae Vynn Artist In Residence

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    6,038
    707
    0
    Location:
    Tumwater, WA USA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    And, if you had, you would have seen that they provide good arguments for cutting down on meat consumption - recognizing that not everyone will go vegan. It really is pretty amazing just how big an impact it would make, in a positive way, if a significant percentage of people dropped meat eating for just ONE DAY each week. If you can swing two days of no meat, that's even better.
     
  6. Celtic Blue

    Celtic Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    2,224
    139
    0
    Location:
    Midwest
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Or better yet, eat your dogs and cats. That way you still get meat for awhile, but reduce your own food bill as well as eliminating your pet food bill and vet bills. What could be more inefficient than feeding more carnivores? Sorry Spot and Fluffy, I like my BBQ, so you've got to go!

    Or we could replace the current cattle population with bison. The historical numbers appear to be similar to the current U.S. cattle population. Both are methane producing ruminants. That and we need to be more efficient at managing and harvesting deer, rabbit, squirrel, turkey, duck, pheasant, quail, fish, bullfrogs, etc. We aren't spending any energy to grow them...so let's make the most of them. Venison, it's what's for dinner. No need to go vegetarian.
     
  7. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,066
    756
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    LE
    The Post article was right on the money.

    Aside from the methane issue from ruminants, in the US economy, the production, processing, transport, and storage of food consumes as much fossil fuel as the entire transportation sector. So, in the aggregate, what we eat burns as much fuel as what we drive. Starting from that basis, it's pretty plausible that our choice of what we eat could easily have as much impact as our choice of what we drive.

    Grain-fed beef has been widely acknowledged as the single largest contributor, in terms of energy required per unit times average units consumed. (Purely in terms of fossil fuel input per edible calorie, many foods are worse (e.g., coffee), but we eat a lot of beef in the US). This has been known for at least 20 years, and again, it's not hard to grasp. It takes 10 lbs of grain to make a pound of beef. Per-capita beef consumption in the US is about 65 lbs, so lurking behind that is the need to grow/process/ship just short of two pounds of grain per person per day, just for the beef. Actually, total US feed grain production per capita amounts to more than a ton per person per year, but that's for all animals and (at least historically) a significant fraction of that was for export. I think the figures are that 60 percent of US grain production (and something like 40 percent of worldwide grain production) is for cattle feed.

    So, yeah, it's a big deal. Actually, once you know the economy-wide statistics, it's plausible enough without actually looking at the detailed estimates. Globally, I believe that something like 17% of GHG emissions are attributed to the raising of cattle (including the impacts of methane and forest clearing for pasture). This is what prompted the Secretary General of the UN to say that, by far, the simplest thing the advanced industrial nations could do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to eat less meat.

    Don't trust the UN? OK, the Pentagon (or at least research hired by and released by the Pentagon) has figured out that global warming means more conflicts due to food and water issues. They didn't waffle, either: 'Once again, warfare would define human life.' So it's not like that's some kind of liberal plot. It's tough to find an organization in position of responsibility for the safety and welfare of a population that isn't officially concerned about this. And for good reason.

    You can make a substantial difference without going vegan, because animal proteins differ substantially in their energy-intensiveness. Best estimate I've seen (Pimentel, Cornell U) is that the energy-intensiveness of chicken production is less than one-tenth that of beef. My family switched to grassfed beef and milk, and my calculation from the underlying data is that substituting that for our existing mix of animal-based protein reduced C02 emissions nearly as much as much as switching to a Prius.

    We have an "ethical eating" movement at my church that's trying to get a few of these points across to people. Vegans have a leg up but it's not like they own this issue. The same guy (Pimentel) who did most of the original research on this pointed out that raising grass-fed cattle on marginal land (good only for pasture) is coming ahead. But you couldn't raise nearly as much beef as we do now with the current cow/calf/CAFO system. Or milk for that matter (80% of US milk production is from grain-fed cows.) So, sure, vegans have a lot of issues here, and I'm not disagreeing with them one bit. But from the standpoint of greenhouse gas emissions, it's really about the scale and mix of US meat consumption, not a black/white vegan versus carnivore contrast.
     
    3 people like this.
  8. ny biker

    ny biker Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    463
    11
    0
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2022 Prius
    Model:
    XLE
    I think one of the important points of this column (alluded to in the title of this thread) is that reducing consumption of meat can have a big impact, and it doesn't require an investment such as buying a new car. And merely cutting back one or two days a week can have a big effect, so everyone doesn't have to go vegan in order to see an impact.

    I've been reading Ezra Klein's blog on washingtonpost.com lately, and I find it interesting. Most posts are on health care reform, but he discusses other topics too. It is an opinion blog, so not everyone will agree with him, but he's a reasonable person.
     
  9. Celtic Blue

    Celtic Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    2,224
    139
    0
    Location:
    Midwest
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Methane is actually a non-issue from what I can gather. The number of cattle in the U.S. is roughly the same as the number of bison 200 years ago. Both are ruminants. I've had trouble finding an article that directly compares the methane production from each. If someone has a direct and objective source for that I would like to see it. I found a study of bison, but could only see the abstract and the units were unclear--appeared to be a ratio of liters produced to dry feed that would put individual methane production in the same range as cows. Unfortunately the abstract did not show cattle based methane production in the same units.

    Methane production in ruminants is higher when grass (forage) fed than grain fed. From what I've seen once we had fewer cattle in the pastures, we ended up with a lot more deer...another methane producing ruminant. Granted, deer are smaller and produce far less.

    I didn't think much of the methane claims when they were being pushed by industry, and I don't think more of them being pushed from the other side now.

    As far as CO2 goes, the issue with meat appears to be more closely related to the method of growing crops, rather than actually feeding the crops to cattle and sending meat to market. So go after the source: the way grain is produced. This is not unlike a CAFE argument...the problem is with the price of the fuel. Better yet, ruminate on this: If you want to discourage grain fed cattle, you really want to increase the cost of the grain, and to do that you want to increase the price of fuel. Whoa! We just came full circle to the real issue now didn't we? Fuel is not priced at its actual long term cost. Re-price it properly and MANY things will adjust as a result.
     
  10. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,562
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Exactly. The sticker price on any item really has nothing to do with its full cost, and our entire economic system is completely out of whack as a result. But, using full cost pricing would change everything, which is why it'll never happen. Instead, we use the golden rule: those with the gold make the rules.
     
  11. Celtic Blue

    Celtic Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    2,224
    139
    0
    Location:
    Midwest
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Related to this, I suspect that many small farms that have gone fallow would start to become economical again if the equation was shifted more towards forage. Afterall, not paying for as much grain (as the big producers) would give us a competitive advantage when coupled with the resultant higher livestock cost. Small dairies literally disappeared in a relatively short time a few decades ago. I remember when nearly all of my old neighbors were small dairy farmers, a few years later none of them were and we were perhaps the last on the road to quit. All that were left were the bigger operations that had a full order of magnitude more cows...then a decade later they were being put out of business by operations with another order of magnitude more cows.

    I've seen a few goat herds in the area when I've been back. I suspect it is a better match for the rocky soil.
     
  12. PriusLewis

    PriusLewis Management Scientist

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    1,002
    84
    7
    Location:
    Denver Metro
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Growing up in Oklahoma ranch country, beef production was a local business. Beef was grass fed in a totally sustainable manner. Transportation of beef was local, and processing was local. We always raised one steer per season with a friend's herd, helping out with herd maintenance (de-lousing, de-horning, and the other activities necessary to maintain health and well being of the "crop"). We usually ended up selling half after processing, and kept a half a beef in the freezer which pretty much kept us in beef until the next go-around.

    What we need are fewer corporate farms and more family, local producers. We need to stop feed-lot methods and return to sustainable, range-fed animals. And if we shifted from beef to buffalo (I'm also Native American and grew up on buffalo as well as beef) we could have a much healthier source of protein.

    Or, we could support the multi-national corporations that currently have a stranglehold on the market and have driven thousands of family farms and ranches out of business and drive past McDonalds one day a week. This will give us a nice warm fuzzy we're doing our part, the loss of income will be made up for in slightly higher pricing, and the multi-national corporations will continue to control what and how we eat. Or we can give up beef altogether, and eat nothing but vegtables and grains from these same multi-national corporate farms. Same difference.

    I say, Corporate CEOs should be a great source of protein if prepared right, and running them out of business to be replaced by smaller, more sustainable family farms closer to their markets would have more effect than any other scheme.
     
  13. pakitt

    pakitt Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    2,173
    1,311
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Limited
    Apologies, but I did not read the whole thread but the title caught my eye.
    I am not into the whole climate change due to CO2 story. I bought the Prius because I am for efficiency, saving money, reduce dependence on oil, want cleaner air and hate being stuck in a traffic jam with the engine idling. We are in 2009 and not in the 1950s anymore.
    Regarding the environment - you really want to reduce CO2?

    1) eat less meat (yes, I agree with that)
    2) prefer local grown food (i.e. apples from Argentina are for me, that I live in Munich, Germany, a total nonsense - there are excellent apples from Germany and nearby northern Italy); unless you are eating something "exotic" - say a Papaya that does not grow in your country
    3) walk!
    4) take public transportation!
    5) push for more tree planting!
    6) use a bicycle!
    7) turn it off! (whatever you keep on without any need for it to be on)

    and then maybe:
    8) buy a smaller car (do you really need an SUV, really?)
    9) buy a Prius
    10) buy a Diesel if you can, in case you don't like the Prius for some reason

    Thinking that you can make a change just by buying a more efficient car (even like a Prius) is IMHO the biggest lie ever. Cars are only one small part of the CO2 problem (if the problem is really the CO2 - I still have to hear the *whole* scientific community give a collective yes about it - I am instead afraid that if there is a climate change problem, we are not really seeing the reason and by the time we really discover what it is, and CO2 might be one part of it, it will be too late to do anything).
     
  14. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,562
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I've tried converting to vegetarianism a couple of times without success. My brain agrees with the sentiment and the philosophy, but my stomach doesn't. I've managed to source some relatively local free-range organic beef, so that's at least a step in the right direction. I don't eat pigs, tend to avoid fast food altogether, and proudly say I haven't eaten at McDonald's in over 30 years.
     
  15. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,066
    756
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    LE
    I thought I might get the figures on the table for cattle and methane. From the most recent US greenhouse gas inventory, expressed in C02-equivalents, methane from cattle and manure management (which I have to believe is from CAFOs) accounted for 181 out of a net total 6087 units (teragrams of C02 equivalent, I think). Of that, 139 is enteric fermentation, the rest is manure.


    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/Introduction.pdf


    So, about 3% of net US emissions is methane from cattle and manure lagoons. That's not their total contribution, that's just the methane.

    That's noticeable. Not huge, but definitely noticeable. The EPA lists all transportation at 1649 on that same scale. So the impact of cattle methane amounts to 11% of the GHG impact of all US transportation.

    Methane doesn't get much respect, I think, because people lose track of its potency. Over a 20 year time horizon, it's 72x as effective as C02 at causing warming. Over a 100 year period, it rates at about 21x as effective as C02 in causing warming.

    http://www.bath.ac.uk/study/ieme/dcs/lac/ipcc/GWP_ratings_IPCC_AR4WG1_TS.pdf

    If I believed in some sort of conservation-of-ruminants law, I could ignore that. But I don't. I think if we had fewer cattle, we'd have less of that methane. Maybe not 1-for-1, but pretty nearly. Can't prove it, but that would be my guess. And certainly, given cattle lifespan (would you guess 3 years on average for all cattle combined), even replacing them one-to-one with some longer-lived ruminant would reduce emissions from enteric fermentation (because you wouldn't have to grow 30 million new cattle from scratch every year.)

    Anyway, the methane issue is enough to have made me rethink the whole grass-fed-beef thing. Grass-fed is clearly better than grain-fed, but when all is said and done, it wouldn't kill me to eat something else.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    The interesting thing about this thread is that it's the nexus of a couple of massive issues that we're currently facing... Energy and Healthcare. The food that most of us are currently eating is both energy intensive and rubbish. The meat is devoid of omega-3s, the vegetables are devoid of nutrients. In the 1950's Americans (according to the Food Inc lad) spent 18% of their income on food and 5% on healthcare. Fast forward to today... Americans spend 9% on food but 18% on healthcare. So we're actually worse off, economically and physically, with the current system. That's why I grow as much food as I can and I'm always eager to expand my knowledge of small scale food production. The grocery stores are fulled with food that's not very good for you... vegan, carnivore, or otherwise.
     
  17. Celtic Blue

    Celtic Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    2,224
    139
    0
    Location:
    Midwest
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Which way do you mean the first sentence? Grass fed means more methane, but less fossil fuel use (for growing/transporting grain). Grain requires less rumination to process than grass does, and the measured methane output from grass fed has exceeded grain fed as I understand it. So it is not clear to me which way a balance would swing with respect to GHG (because of the methane potency.)

    If the bison digestive process is essentially the same as cattle, then forage fed bison would have produced more methane per head on grass than grain fed cattle today would. (Note the "if" because I do not have comparitive figures for the animals so the statement could be wrong. It is a piece of information I would really like to have as it would be very useful for a fuller understanding.)

    I had some interesting experiences tent camping with wild bison a few weeks ago. I didn't realize they had full run of the campsite and were unafraid of humans when the plans were made...or that they were going to be in rut at the time. Awakening to a herd of bison completely surrounding your tent is quite an experience. :eek: The bison cows weren't much different in behavior than domesticated cattle, but I was wary of the bulls in rut, especially when they started bashing heads about 50 yards away from the tent. I'm accustomed to having a pasture full of domestic steers and cows...not bulls.

    One of the cows was a bit hard to drive off, she was too curious. She got a taste of fresh rainwater in a container lid and wanted more, and she had a young horny bull hanging close, so I had to be careful about riling him while I backed her off--none of the waving off and vocalization I would normally employ to drive cows, no need to p*** off the boyfriend. Petted her nose a bit as she sniffed me, but stood firmly between her and her objective (tents and table) as she moved around probing for an opening. She eventually moved on after about 30 minutes.

    In a separate experience a previously unseen bull bison charged me while I was checking on a different bull that had tumbled about 20 feet down a butte overhang (blame my farm upbringing to check on livestock when they might be injured.) The rest of the herd had moved on, so I wasn't expecting company from stragglers. Fortunately, I had an escape route planned that he couldn't follow--bison don't vault well, but with a little adenaline I do! ;) They are fast animals and I wouldn't want to be stuck in a foot race with one through the sage on flat ground.

    Until the horse arrived on this continent, hunting bison would have been a very hazardous occupation. In a herd, these are not animals you would want to confront on foot, even with with a dozen of your best buddies with spears. My pre-horse native-American name would have been "Prefers to Hunt Rabbits." :D Wonder how many rabbit pelts it takes for a teepee?
     
  18. Rae Vynn

    Rae Vynn Artist In Residence

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    6,038
    707
    0
    Location:
    Tumwater, WA USA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    I think the issue of dietary choices should be the same as our driving choices - take a look of the impacts, upstream and down, of our choices.

    Eating local, eating organic, eating vegan - choosing any or all of these options will reduce, to various degrees, the carbon footprint of our consumption. Different areas will have different things available as far as local and/or organic.
    Reducing meat consumption by 1/7th (that's one day a week, for the numerically challenged) has an impact, much as changing driving habits to reduce unnecessary trips does.

    Tripp has a point about the quality of what we eat, as well. Organically grown produce has more nutrients than conventionally grown. The less processed food is, the more nutrition it has, as well.

    Processing also creates more of a footprint. Packaging materials, energy used in processing, the weight of shipping, etc.

    While I am a vegan, and wholeheartedly embrace the advantages of this lifestyle, I'm not saying that everyone has to become a vegan -- but everyone should take a look at what's going on in the world, and where their food comes from, and what impact dietary choices has on the world, and the environment. Maybe skip meat once or twice a week. Choose the organic apples. Pick up the locally grown lettuce instead of the lettuce that was shipped from three states away. Swear off fast food!

    Eat real food. Mostly plants. Not too much. :p
     
  19. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    :rockon:

    The systemic problem is low fuel cost that does not include exernalities. Until that is fixed, things are going to stay the same.

    On a personal note, I'm happy to say that I've transitioned to public transport to get to work. There is a bit or irony though that I feel a bit chagrined about, every time I see diesel smoke coming out of the train.

    Regarding Chogan and Shawn's posts, I tend to think both are true, although I cannot quantify further. Certainly cows are inefficient machines, methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and moving calories (let alone water!) around in circles on trucks before they are consumed are all best avoided. By extension I argue that we should transition to transporting food staples to the home, and buy less processed food products. My family tend to eat this way anyway because of personal taste preferences, frugality, and health considerations.

    Disclaimer: I am a Vegenarian. That's a vegetarian who is vegan most of the time. :)
     
  20. PriusLewis

    PriusLewis Management Scientist

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    1,002
    84
    7
    Location:
    Denver Metro
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Glad to hear you got to pet a bison. Not a common thing these days. I miss having them around (since I moved away from Oklahoma). When I was a kid, I got licked by a big cow bison and decided that was the BIGGEST tongue in the universe! She was very motherly to us kids - scientists have studied the reaction of species to young of other species and they all get somewhat motherly with young ones.

    Most studies of prehistoric hunting methodologies show that hunters often stampeded herds and directed them over a ravine. Much easier than hunting healthy individuals in a heard bent on protecting their young. Even horses only reduce the danger but do not eliminate it. The scenes in "Dances With Wolves" where they are riding in the herd were frightening - I've ridden in a tight heard of cows and was uncomfortable, let alone bison!

    I think my name would be "Beggs For Meat" as in "Hey, anyone have any left over buffalo? I'm HUNGRY!"