New Report Calls for Meat Rationing to Slow Climate Change
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 09.30.08
A new report from the Food Climate Research Network at the University of Surrey says people will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change.
According to Juliette Jowit in the Guardian, the report says "total food consumption should be reduced, especially "low nutritional value" treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates."
Having fun yet?
that is a proper portion size
Jowit writes about the report:
"It urges people to return to habits their mothers or grandmothers would have been familiar with: buying locally in-season products, cooking in bulk and in pots with lids or pressure cookers, avoiding waste and walking to the shops - alongside more modern tips such as using the microwave and internet shopping.
The report goes much further than any previous advice after mounting concern about the impact of the livestock industry on greenhouse gases and rising food prices. It follows a four-year study of the impact of food on climate change and is thought to be the most thorough study of its kind.
Tara Garnett, the report's author, warned that campaigns encouraging people to change their habits voluntarily were doomed to fail and urged the government to use caps on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon pricing to ensure changes were made. "Food is important to us in a great many cultural and symbolic ways, and our food choices are affected by cost, time, habit and other influences," the report says. "Study upon study has shown that awareness-raising campaigns alone are unlikely to work, particularly when it comes to more difficult changes."
Others call this an over-reaction.
"The notion that cows and sheep are four-legged weapons of mass destruction has become something of a distraction from the real issues in both climate change and food production," said Pat Thomas, the Ecologist's editor. ::The Guardian
Other Meaty Stories in TreeHugger
UN Expert Says Eat Less Red Meat To Reduce CO2 Emissions :
Meat -eating Warrants Same Scrutiny as Driving and Flying :
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- 53% of Global Carbon Emissions Come From the Developing World: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- New Report Calls for Meat Rationing to Slow Climate Change
- On Moving Toward Vegetarianism: Teenagers
- Green Eyes On: President Obama, How About Organic Farming?
Greenpeace and Ben & Jerry’s Make Climate-Friendly Ice Cream Cooler
|
New NETGEAR Routers Help Battle Phantom Power
|
Another reason to go veggie... as if colon cancer wasn't a good enough reason!
I don't see anything like this happening these days until it is too late. We live in a consumer economy, and lobbyists could hammer in the point that eating less meat could cause economic stagnation.
The only way that people will reduce their meat and dairy consumption is to raise the price. The only way for the government to do this is to simply remove all subsities. I for one, however, will pay extra to eat meat.
LOL! What is this, wartime circa 1944?
As sad as it is to have to resort to rationing, I agree that it's something that has to happen. One of the reasons our generations are so lax with our money and our environment is because we've never had to deal with the hardships that our grandparents went through.
It may piss people off, and people may complain that their 'freedom' is being taken away, but our grandparents managed it, and so can we.
Or, you can make the price of meat and dairy accurately reflect the cost of producing it. If it takes 7 pounds of grain and 5,000 gallons of water and x square feet of land to make a pound of beef, then beef should be very expensive. And we should put a price on GHG emissions, so that is producing x pounds of meat releases y pounds of methane and z pounds of CO2, that should be reflected in the price at the supermarket.
And people's buying habits will change with no rationing needed. I consider the fact that I can go to the grocery store and buy chicken or pasta for the same price per pound absurd.
I agree with the reduction of meat for health reasons, mainly. You can add all the ecological and economical and ethical reasons that it is still a smart choice for people to do.
I disagree that there should any sort of rationing since I believe education gets better results than prohibition. Further taxation seems unnecessary since the prices of meat (mostly imported) are on the rise.
The governement should participate by giving the example in their facilities (schools, town halls, hospitals) and not as a regulator on these individual choices.
Ps. Not a vegetarian 3 days a week.
It is important for people to know where their food comes from, how it is made, and the impact is has on the environment and human health. Maybe if more consumers were given this information and meat was priced in accordance to the real cost of production then things would be different.
I agree with James J and Anthony.
Stop all the crazy government subsidies to big agri-biz before rationing. Be honest about the real prices of food and consumption habits will change.
The feed conversion ratio for pork is 2x as efficient as beef (also major methane producers), chicken is 5x & fish is 6x but when I walk into a store in the US, beef is cheaper. If they were priced fairly, fish & rice would be the best value, followed by chicken on whole wheat. Which is how it is outside the scope of big governments.