Holy Cow! Sacred Beef Takes Backseat In Climate Debate
by April Streeter, Gothenburg, Sweden on 03.18.08
Swedish investigative program Uppdrag Granskning (UG) figured out a curious fact: for all its squeaky-clean posture on climate efforts (oil-free by 2020, yeah) Sweden has left out of its position papers one very large emitter - beef cows.
While it is accepted knowledge among enviro-types that eating less meat is a clear way to reduce carbon footprint and CO2 emissions, Swedes (and all of Europe) seem to have left it out of its top 10 ideas for reducing emissions, concentrating efforts instead on transport - still a worthy endeavor to be sure. In UG's reckoning, each Swedish car, driven an average of around 10,000 kilometers, puts out the same amount of CO2 as the average cow does in methane (100 kilo). No political party leader is ready to subsidize less meat eating...at least not yet. Approval of a climate label for food in Sweden (the label's rules will go for a first round of approval by the Minister of Agriculture next month) will start to give shoppers an idea of the climate effect of what's in their carts. Food climate researcher Annika-Carlsson Kanyama says if Swedes are thinking to eat beef to keep Swedish landscapes open (a common folk "myth") than their allotment each week equals just 400 grams. Via: Uppdrag Granskning (Swedish)
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Run Cars on Green Electricity, Not Natural Gas
- Tropical Forests Better Left Intact As Carbon Sinks Than Converted to Biofuel Plantations
- Sun, Nike, Starbucks and More Meet for Climate Action
- The Life of a Swedish 'Climate Smart' Chicken: Nasty, Brutish, Short?
Mmm. Meat. Difficult one. It has a cultural context as well. We in Africa people eat meat. And it would be difficult to get us off this. Yes, there are maybe good reasons to move away from meat. But it will insult our culture. http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/we-eat-meat-get-used-to-it/
By not focusing on meat, they miss a lot. In being green, people swallow their pride on changing who they are and changing. So, not eating as much meat is the same. They really should add it to their agenda.
Also, cultures may eat meat, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't change. If a culture is insulted about changing (and the issue is dire), then they will be left behind. American culture (maybe just like the some African cultures as the other commenter added) focuses on eating meat, since hamburgers and hot dogs are thought to be cultural.
Hopefully, more people choose to eat less meat, which will extremely help, especially if we many areas might be in a drought soon.
I think your comment is important. Eating meat is part of many cultures. And to reduce the negative effects meat eating has on the environment you needn't request cultures to abandon their gastronomic history.
It is my belief that that large factory scaled production of meat, particularly our American model, is what is to account for carbon footprints of a grand scale. It is the desire for excess, and for cheap quick excess of meat that scorches the earth and its animals.
And It is this very model of production (it's not even production, it's RAISING a living thing), that is hurting the environment. Not the act of eating the animal itself.
By focusing on breaking the bad habits established in the U.S. and consequently other countries, you can change the way we address the problem of meat consumption.
Eat good meat, raised by good, honest, and local farmers, and eat it when it's in season.