William Atkins
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 03:27
Science -
Climate
Page 3 of 4
The researchers state,
“A global transition to a low meat-diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm [parts per million]
CO2-eq. stabilisation target by about 50% in 2050 compared to the reference case.”
Many climate change scientists contend that carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO
2-eq) levels must be stabilized in our global atmosphere at a level of
450 parts per million (ppm) in order to effectively counter global climate change.
In addition, the researchers state,
“Dietary changes could therefore not only create substantial benefits for human health and global land use, but can also play an important role in future climate change mitigation policies.” [Abstract]
According to the New Scientist article “
Eating less meat could cut climate costs,” $20 trillion of costs could be removed from the cost of reducing the effects of global climate change over the next forty years.
In addition, Dr. Elke Stehfest, one the authors of the study, states in the New Scientist article that:
“These impacts would lessen the need for expensive carbon-saving technologies, such as "clean coal" power plants, and so save huge sums.”
In fact,
“Beef is particularly damaging. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is released from flatulent cows and by manure as it decays. Furthermore, to produce a kilogram of beef (2.2 pounds), farmers also have to feed a cow 15 kg of grain and 30 kg of forage. Grain requires fertiliser, which is energy intensive to produce.” [New Scientist}
Dr. Stehfest looks at two options for countering greenhouse gas accumulations in our atmosphere over the next forty years:
(1) If humans continue to eat livestock as they have in the past, then greenhouse gas emissions would have to be reduced by two-thirds by 2050 (in order to attain the 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide). Such action would likely cost around $40 trillion, according to Stehfest.
Option two continues on page four.
