Meat worse than air miles, in CO2 terms?

robinsmith3

website team CRAGger Islington Leeds Wokingham WSP

Shoudlnt we be getting rid of CO2 rather than the car. ie a move away from fossil fuels. Apologies if you mean something else.

Also there was a recent article on how science is devolping a way to grow potein that could replace animal protein. Probably would take some getting used to.

Bytesmiths

science is devolping a way to grow potein that could replace animal protein

Already been done! It’s called “vegetarianism.” Anyone can do it, right now, without help from “scientists!”

Quinoa (pronounced “keen wah”) is an ancient new world grain that is a complete protein source. Rice and beans together is also a complete protein source.

More important than complete protein is healthy oils. Any good vegetarian knows to have ground flax or flax oil in at least one meal a day. Flax provides the omega fatty acids that one would normally get from threatened predator fish, such as salmon.

That’s how to be a vegetarian in three easy steps. Why do we need “science” to replace ancient knowledge?

:::: Jan Steinman, a fossil-fuel-free (almost!) zone! http://www.VeggieVanGogh.com ::::

robinsmith3

website team CRAGger Islington Leeds Wokingham WSP

You seem to have a dislike for scientists here. Any reason why.

I too hate the thought of farming chickens. Poor little things get a couple of weeks of life. I use Quorn etc

People probably prefer meat because it tastes nice. Beans etc do not. There are minerals and vitamins etc missing from meat and other protein sources. Anything wrong with having the best of both worlds?

The problem for radical vegitarianism is that it divides people radically. Most people do not respond to this approach. A message of good intentions is ruined.

Bytesmiths

Sorry, I have no dislike of scientists. In fact, I are one, at least in the sense that I do science for love (_amateur_) rather than for money (_professional_). :-)

I do have a dislike of “inappropriate technology.” Figuring out how to get protein from sunlight is not something that needs technological support.

And I am not a “radical vegetarian.” I am a realist: one can cut the carbon load of one’s diet by probably 75%, simply by eliminating meat. After transportation, this may be the single biggest carbon impact one has.

Those who claim meat “tastes nice” and “beans do not” probably have not explored any vegetarian cook books. I have a bite now and then, and think to myself at the time, “What’s the big deal?” We’ve been enculturated by the meat industry to expect to have meat. It really is not necessary, and probably not possible for 6.7 billion people!

Some people think big, comfortable, fast cars are “nice” and that smaller cars are not. Are we going to let meat-eaters off the carbon hook while pointing fingers at Hummer drivers?

I am open to the idea of self-butchered meat from an animal that has reached the end of a long, productive life. But raising animals strictly for butcher is non-Permaculture, and is carbon-wasteful.

Each of our goats produce nearly a ton of protein-rich milk each year. That’s nearly enough protein for ten people, even if they didn’t get any protein from vegetables! Our chickens produce about 300 eggs a year, enough protein for a couple. They’ll continue to produce fewer eggs for six years or more. Why would we want to “eat our workers?”

At the end of a long, productive life, full of companionship and love, it will be a sacrament to share their flesh. But an old, tough goat won’t taste better than beans at that point. :-) We’ll simply be honouring their protein by not wasting it.

See http://www.EcoReality.org for more details.

:::: Jan Steinman, a fossil-fuel-free (almost!) zone! http://www.VeggieVanGogh.com ::::

Bytesmiths

Sorry, I have no dislike of scientists. In fact, I are one, at least in the sense that I do science for love (_amateur_) rather than for money (_professional_). :-)

I do have a dislike of “inappropriate technology.” Figuring out how to get protein from sunlight is not something that needs technological support.

And I am not a “radical vegetarian.” I am a realist: one can cut the carbon load of one’s diet by probably 75%, simply by eliminating meat. After transportation, this may be the single biggest carbon impact one has.

Those who claim meat “tastes nice” and “beans do not” probably have not explored any vegetarian cook books. I have a bite now and then, and think to myself at the time, “What’s the big deal?” We’ve been enculturated by the meat industry to expect to have meat. It really is not necessary, and probably not possible for 6.7 billion people!

Some people think big, comfortable, fast cars are “nice” and that smaller cars are not. Are we going to let meat-eaters off the carbon hook while pointing fingers at Hummer drivers?

I am open to the idea of self-butchered meat from an animal that has reached the end of a long, productive life. But raising animals strictly for butcher is non-Permaculture, and is carbon-wasteful.

Each of our goats produce nearly a ton of protein-rich milk each year. That’s nearly enough protein for ten people, even if they didn’t get any protein from vegetables! Our chickens produce about 300 eggs a year, enough protein for a couple. They’ll continue to produce fewer eggs for six years or more. Why would we want to “eat our workers?”

At the end of a long, productive life, full of companionship and love, it will be a sacrament to share their flesh. But an old, tough goat won’t taste better than beans at that point. :-) We’ll simply be honouring their protein by not wasting it.

See http://www.EcoReality.org for more details.

:::: Jan Steinman, a fossil-fuel-free (almost!) zone! http://www.VeggieVanGogh.com ::::

Bytesmiths

Sorry, I have no dislike of scientists. In fact, I are one, at least in the sense that I do science for love (_amateur_) rather than for money (_professional_).

I ‘’‘do’‘’ have a dislike of “inappropriate technology.” Figuring out how to get protein from sunlight is not something that needs technological support.

And I am not a “radical vegetarian.” I am a realist: one can cut the carbon load of one’s diet by probably 75%, simply by eliminating meat.

Those who claim meat “tastes nice” and “beans do not” probably have not explored any vegetarian cook books. I have a bite now and then, and think to myself at the time, “What’s the big deal?” We’ve been enculturated by the meat industry to expect to have meat. It really is not necessary, and probably not possible for 6.7 billion people!

Some people think big, comfortable, fast cars are “nice” and that smaller cars are not. Are we going to let meat-eaters off the carbon hook while pointing fingers at Hummer drivers?

I am open to the idea of self-butchered meat from an animal that has reached the end of a long, productive life. But raising animals strictly for butcher is non-Permaculture, and is carbon-wasteful.

Each of our goats produce nearly a ton of protein-rich milk each year. That’s enough protein for ten people, even if they didn’t get any protein from vegetables! Our chickens produce about 300 eggs a year, enough protein for a couple. They’ll continue to produce fewer eggs for six years or more. Why would we want to “eat our workers?”

At the end of a long, productive life, full of companionship and love, it will be a sacrament to share their flesh. But an old, tough goat won’t taste better than beans at that point. :-) We’ll simply be honouring their protein by not wasting it.

:::: Jan Steinman, a fossil-fuel-free (almost!) zone! http://www.VeggieVanGogh.com ::::

The issue is not really one of eating meat or not, nor even of carbon emissions. The real issue is one of western over-consumption of everything and of that philosophy being extended to the whole world.

Meat has moved from being an expensive luxury with almost all cuts having value to a western staple when only the “best” cuts will do, but then the same is true of so many other things as well (oil, timber, minerals, food, water, to name but a few).

I do get more than a little tired of prosletysing vegetarians/vegans making hysterical attempts to divert what should be a global agenda of reducing all consumption – and particularly energy consumption, into a vegetarian crusade to “save” the world. And they shouldn’t forget the effects of soya bean production, whether organic, non-organic or GM, either.

And yes, I’m both a meat eater and a meat producer. But we do rear animals on a small, extensive scale; only eat our own meat or game; and only in small amounts a few times a week. I was also a vegetarian for many years – not because I have problems with eating meat per se, but because I didn’t want to eat meat unless I was wholly sure the animals it came from had been reared and slaughtered in ways that I’m entirely comfortable with.

Unfortunately, that saw me labelled as hypocrite by many vegans/vegetarians who think that’s a less valid reason for being vegetarian than being philosophically opposed to any animal being killed for meat, clothing, etc. I still don’t understand why there should only be one valid reason for being vegetarian or vegan, and I refuse to accept that becoming vegetarian is “the way” to save the world.

It’s bad enough dealing with the fervently eco-converted when they find out I’m not a “green” – I’m a rural pragmatist who believes we should all tread lightly and look to the long-term – but if the energy consumption/carbon emissions issue gets turned into a vegetarian crusade then it will lose a lot of public support from people like me. We’ll continue to do our own thing – which often converges with and sometimes exceeds the green agenda – but we’re not going to sign up to what is in danger of becoming a rabid vegan mission of conversion or submission in the guise of curbing global warming.

Stonehead is talking sense. Properly reared animals are not the problem. I am largely veggie but I don’t mind the odd bacon sarnie or bit of chicken if I can be sure the pig/chicken lived a natural contented life.

A friend of mine works in an intensive egg/chicken rearing unit – when I hear what she describes I can almost sympathise with the more extreme animal libbers!

Food miles are a problem, if we adopted a reasoned attitude to all our food purchases we could do a lot to cut emissions. As for Quorn etc – yuck. I’ve eaten very little meat for over 30 years and have never had to resort to meat substitutes – and I don’t use soya either.

The problem with trying to take the middle road of saying meat, per se, is not the problem is that traditional ways are not necessarily valid for modern lifestyles and population levels.
At first glance, the position that animals can be sustainably reared for the mass market seems reasonable. But it ignores two things at least: the massive, growing human population demanding a ‘modest’ about of animal protein would require huge amounts of land. Also, as well as continuing to eat meat, people want to also continue to drive cars, take flights, use loads of electricity, buy energy-intensive products etc etc. There’s nothing modest about modern Western lifestyles and the carbon debt we have accrued, so traditional, common sense assumptions don’t apply. Something has got to give. E.g., Car or meat?. A hundred years ago I would reluctantly agree that there was a such a thing as sustainably farmed animals for the UK population; not now. Green-minded meat-eaters have to recognise their own emotional attachment to meat and that they will be tempted to favour arguments which get them off the hook.

robinsmith3

website team CRAGger Islington Leeds Wokingham WSP

Careful not to confuse carbon emissions with energy though. Lets deal with the low carbon economy, then look at the annecdotes around consumption (I agree status anxiety is not making us happier)

Do you think a habitable climate sits at the beginning of the “civilisation food chain”? I do, its just my opinion though…

robinsmith3

website team CRAGger Islington Leeds Wokingham WSP

Dear J

I think you are asking about the carbon footprint of our water supply right? If so I believe electricity used to pump and supply water in the UK is about 2% of UK annual emissions. This is a rough guide:

UK emissions: 600mT CO2
Water Supply Power: 2% = 12mT CO2
UK population: 65M
Per capita water footprint = 0.2T CO2 per person
Per capita water usage = 57000 litres
So 1 litre of water has an emboddied footprint of 0.003kg or 3 grams per litre

And 5 mega litres has a footprint of 17500kg or 17.5 tonnes CO2

Hope this is correct and helps
Robin.

Building Research Establishment assessed this and concluded 0.44kg CO2 per cu.m of water taking account of energy used for pumping water and processing sewage. The figure varies slightly from area to area. For example in the South West, it is about 0.55 kg CO2 per cu.m of water. Your water supplier will be able to advise. If you are not using the public sewage system, I think the figure for water supply only was about 0.2 kg CO2 per cu.m of water but again this should be checked with your area water supplier.

Regards

Godfrey Whitehouse
Exeter CRAG

Guy S

website team CRAGger Islington

...Courtesy of the Vegetarian Society. Admittedly they’re biased – but I think they’re based on figures from a UN report I was reading recently. The Veggies say:

‘Farmed animals produce more greenhouse gas emissions (18%) than the world’s entire transport system (13.5%). Nitrous oxide is almost 300 times as damaging to the climate as carbon dioxide (CO2) and 65% of the quantity generated by human activity comes from livestock (mostly their manure). The digestive systems of farmed cows and sheep are also responsible for 37% of the total methane generated by human activity; this gas has 23 times the global warming impact of CO2. The animals we rear for meat also account for 64% of all the ammonia that humans impose on our precious atmosphere, contributing significantly to acid rain.’

Source, http://www.vegsoc.org/vegweek/reasons.html.

Convincing but not detailed enough, of course. I’m still compiling data on CO2 impacts of food and will post more on this in future. Some interesting figures for how much even a single beefburger ‘emits’! More data from anyone would be greatly appreciated.

vey straker

CRAGger Hereford

Hi Martin

You could have a look at this:

http://www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk/how/householders/
Grants of up to £2,500 per household, to help climate-conscious householders to install microgeneration technologies such as solar PV, solar thermal heating systems, microhydro, micro-wind, and biomass, etc, will be available towards the end of this month. The grants, which are available through the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP), has already allocated £6.8m in grants to householders and, following the addition of an extra £6m in the Budget, applications for the remaining £11.9m will again be open from the 29th May 2007. The grant scheme was put on hold in March while the application process was streamlined to make sure it benefits the sector in the long term. Key changes to the application criteria include the removal of the monthly cap and a new requirement to have planning permission before applying. Since it launched in April 2006 the LCBP has directly funded 2175 installations on homes. This includes 242 mini-turbines, 313 Solar PV projects and 1467 solar thermal heating systems.

Guy S

website team CRAGger Islington

A good thing to flag up Vey – and some very interesting figures – but the stats also tell a different story: that only 2175 microgen units have been fitted in the last year. DTI figures show that there were only around 82,000 microgen units in the whole country in 2004, in a nation of around 21 million occupied homes. (See http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file27578.pdf.)

This is pretty poor… especially when you look at places like Germany, where there are 300,000 domestic PV systems alone. Apparently, ‘Germany supports microgeneration by forcing electricity companies to pay a lot for any power fed into the grid by households on the principle that the polluter pays. The DTI, though, says that method is too “interventionist”.’ See http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,2076327,00.html.

But no point crying over spilt grants. I guess Martin may also have been meaning that the government fails to support hunting game (or at least outlaws certain kinds of hunting) and doesn’t really encourage farmers to reforest their land. The dreaded Common Agricultural Policy has been reformed a bit to decouple payments from agricultural productivity, which can incentivise planting hedgerows and coppices, but not I think very much. It’d be interesting to get the Forestry Commission’s stance on it. Plus there’s the flip side of the coin whereby native farmland displaced by new forests causes more of our food to be shipped or flown in from abroad.

Are you a member of a CRAG Martin? Sounds like your recommendations would be very valuable to one.