Dietary Choices and Our Impact on Climate | Author: Alex A.
- R&R Institute
- Feb 26, 2019
- 4 min read
To date, in a political climate so heavily politicized by ideas of the left, right, and center, perhaps one of the subjects so prone to arise is that of climate change. Looking across this spectrum, it’s not uncommon to hear points criticizing those advocating for individual action, in the face of a cycle that is overwhelmingly influenced by large corporate or government entities. You may also run into an opposing perspective, that a nanny-state comprised of regulations against individuals and corporations, is somehow incompatible with our modern western lifestyle, defined by our pursuit of individual liberties and opportunities. It would be unwise to dismiss either point, considering that corporations are in fact the largest polluters in both GHG emissions and plastic/chemical contaminants to our environment. To take on the point of individual liberty, and for the purpose of this article, we will look at one particular way in which we as individuals can influence other people and larger government/corporate entities.
It goes without saying that our diets make up a large part of our lives. For one, what we eat is what keeps us alive, giving us the stored chemical energy for our bodies to function, think, do work, and manipulate (respectfully, of course) the world around us to whatever purpose it may serve us and other life on this planet. Our habits are also programmed into our schedules, divided into three major eating periods of our day, and smaller portions distributed throughout. Our cultures are largely defined by the food made available to us, and western culture is far from the exception. Take for instance the stereotype of the burger-eating North American, made possible by a meat industry so efficient, it has made the cost of meat considerably lower than that of most other products on our shelves. It is no wonder that with such ease of access to it, meat has become a staple of the American diet, and increasingly around the world.
How much meat exactly do we eat? A 2018 report by the USDA forecasted a record year for American meat consumption, showing since 2007 a steadily increasing trend of meat consumption made favorable by lower feed-crop prices. The current estimate puts the per capita meat consumption of the average American at a little over 275 lbs/year, of which nearly a third is beef. This weight of meat generates magnitudes more its weight of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). The obvious offender, beef, produces 22.5 times its weight in CO2 [1] , with pork, and other mammals not far behind it. Knowing this, it may not be all that far-fetched to say that calling for action on climate change whilst eating our current average amounts of beef, is ideologically incompatible. Of course, instead of marginalizing those who see climate action as a necessity and as a collective role, perhaps we can look at reducing the amount of beef to a fraction of what we consume now. Break the habit of the spring/summertime barbecue and substitute the beef burger that feeds a party of a dozen, as replacing it with almost anything in (lamb excluded) [2] will have a tremendous impact in reducing our ecological footprint.
In the climate report of October of 2018, it was indicated that our current trends of GHG emissions will be irreversible by the late-2020s. A stark and grim outlook. To see that even when climate scientists hypothesize serious irreversible effects within the decade ahead, we are unsuccessful in any meaningful, aggressive action. Rather than to bicker over who is responsible in taking that action, collectively and as individuals we can and should make immediate sacrifices that affect the current food economy at all levels. This drove my personal decision to stop eating meat, considering the GHG impact (Figure 1), and other ecological factors. Dieting with GHGs and numbers in mind, it makes up a brand of environmental vegetarianism, which guides personal dietary choices. Imagine if policy decisions reflected this as well, the kind of food that ought to be levied, in proportion to the following:
Production impacts
Waste processing: knowing the methane output, a GHG 25 times more potent than CO2, of any food production process [3].
The regional availability of the food and distance travelled.
Environmental stresses caused by food production, and the future costs associated
In essence, the current Americanized culture of regular beef-eating is not sustainable. In response there needs to be an initiative to incentivize substitutes, or at minimum opt for lower impact meats. Plant-based burgers however have since made enormous leaps, many eliminating soy as an ingredient and creating a much more environmentally sustainable while being a delicious substitute. Some even resembling actual traditional beef burgers. Fortunately, a trend towards substitutes is being helped by decreasing prices. Let these points influence a shift in culture. All things considered, within the 12 years given to us by scientists, the earliest change can start at our next food stop.
[1] Jones, Keithly, et al. “Per Capita Red Meat and Poultry Disappearance: Insights Into Its Steady Growth.” USDA ERS - Food Environment Atlas, 4 June 2018, www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2018/june/per-capita-red-meat-and-poultry-disappearance-insights-into-its-steady-growth/.
[2] K. Jones, D.L. Jones, P. Cross, The carbon footprint of lamb: Sources of variation and opportunities for mitigation, Agricultural Systems, Volume 123, 2014, Pages 97-107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.09.006.
[3] EPA. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017” Page ES-15, 12 Feb 2019, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2017
[4] Goldstein B et al. “Potential to curb the environmental burdens of American beef consumption using a novel plant-based beef substitute.” 6 Dec 2017, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189029
Comments