One man’s meat is another’s global ecological calamity

The article below is a referenced version of my piece that appeared in the Weekend Edition of the Irish Times on Saturday last. Writers don’t get to choose the headlines  –’Meat is madness’ – my preference would have been to emphasise the stark choice we face: unbridled meat consumption locks in climate havoc, yet compared to other swingeing lifestyle changes we face, cutting back sharply on meat is in fact among the least unpalatable. Lack of awareness that meat (especially from ruminants) is a key driver in just about every environmental crisis you can mention, is widespread. That’s what this article is really about addressing.

==============================================

IRELAND HAS a serious obesity problem. By 2030, this will have spiralled into a full-blown public health emergency. World Health Organisation projections show that, on current trends, one in two Irish adults will be clinically obese within 15 years.

Ireland also finds itself among the very worst in the league table of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, where we are 45 per cent above the EU average in per capita emissions. And, despite binding international commitments to rapidly reduce this pollution, data from the Environment Protection Agency confirms our emissions, like our waistlines, are instead continuing to expand.

At first glance, there might seem little to connect GHG emissions with an obesity epidemic, but they can also be seen as two sides of the same dysfunctional coin. This is the conclusion of a major new study from researchers at Oxford University.

The current global food production and marketing system is generating a glut of cheap processed meats which are fuelling dangerous climate change while also feeding a pandemic of diet-related ill health which is costing between $700 billion and $1 trillion a year in healthcare and related costs.

If people in developed countries like Ireland and the US simply ate no more than the recommended levels of meat, some 5.1 million premature deaths could be avoided by 2050, according to the Oxford study. They further calculated that a worldwide switch to a vegetarian diet would yield 7.3 million lives saved.

While these would be welcome reductions in ill health, hospitalisation and premature death from heart disease, cancers and diabetes, the carbon dividend of such a dietary transformation is no less significant. Researchers calculated that reining in our meat consumption to the recommended levels would cut GHG emissions from agriculture by a hefty 29 per cent.

A global shift to a vegetarian diet would deliver a profound reduction in agricultural GHG emissions, slashing them by 63 per cent, while also easing a host of related chronic ecological problems, from deforestation to desertification, eutrophication and water stress.

This would have the vital co-benefit of also freeing the land available to grow food directly for humans and so reducing hunger levels among the poor.

Globally, the production of just meat and dairy products generates some 14.5 per cent of all emissions – this is greater than the output of every car, bus, lorry, train and ship in the world – combined.

The influential UK think tank, the Chatham House institute in 2014 produced a study that found low levels of awareness among the public about the true costs of their dietary choices. However, “consumers with a higher level of awareness were more likely to indicate willingness to reduce their meat and dairy consumption for climate objectives”.

Closing what they call the “awareness gap” is a vital first step. The study noted the “striking paucity of efforts” to rein in consumption. They also suggest that both governments and environmental groups have been “reluctant to pursue policies or campaigns to shift consumer behaviour”.

The reason seems to be the fear of backlash, principally from powerful vested interest groups, and in few countries is this more apparent than Ireland, where national food policy is shaped primarily by the agri-industrial lobby.

It’s worth considering what is at stake. “Without a significant reduction in global meat-eating, keeping global warming below 2˚C will be nearly impossible. Tackling unsustainable meat consumption is therefore a necessity”, the Chatham House report added.

Left unchecked, by 2050, global meat and dairy consumption will have risen by 76 per cent compared with today, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). This would represent a lethal double whammy for both human health and the biosphere.

Change in human behaviour is difficult, but not impossible, to achieve. A separate study by researchers at Reading and Oxford universities recommended taxing the ‘carbon footprint’ of foods such as beef and dairy products to reflect their true health and environmental costs.

They warned, however, of the risk of pushing the public towards sweeter dietary options that are equally unhealthy. Their solution: a CO2 tax of around €4 per tonne on high-emissions foods combined with a 20 per cent sales tax on sugary drinks. They estimated this intervention alone would reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas output by 18.5 million tonnes, while avoiding some 1,250 premature deaths annually.

The practical impact of such a tax would be to significantly push up the price of red meat, including beef and lamb, which could lead to a 20 per cent drop in consumption.

Shortly after this study was published, the UK government took the unexpected step of introducing a levy on sugary drinks. The Irish industry, backed by finance minister Michael Noonan, has been quick to decry such a move here. Taxes do work. A 10 per cent tax in Mexico on sugary drinks saw consumption fall by 12 per cent within a year.

The Irish agribusiness lobby is, unsurprisingly, fiercely opposed to levies on high carbon foods. Ireland’s national beef herd comprises over five million animals, with another 1.2 million dairy cows. The dairy sector, following the euphoria of last year’s lifting of quotas, is now in crisis as milk prices have slumped to barely the cost of production.

Dramatic expansion of Ireland’s dairy herd has run roughshod over our need to sharply cut agricultural emissions, which today count for around a third of all our GHGs. Irish taxpayers may soon be facing multi-billion euro EU fines as a result of this complete failure to manage either agriculture or transport-related emissions.

While dairy farmers struggle, the beef sector remains on life support, surviving thanks to massive EU transfers. Prof Alan Matthews of TCD quoted Teagasc figures last year confirming that, were it not for EU subsidies of around €400 per hectare, beef farming “could not continue”. If, he explained, “you were to add in the additional costs of greenhouse gases, those net margins would be even more negative”.

As a way of making food, beef production is strikingly inefficient. “Beef has one of the lowest ‘feed-to-food’ conversion efficiencies of commonly consumed foods. Only 1 per cent of gross cattle feed energy and 4 per cent of ingested protein are converted to human-edible calories and protein. As a result, beef uses more land and freshwater, and generates more GHG emissions per unit of protein than other commonly consumed food”, according to the 2016 Global Food Policy Report.

Defence of our high-emissions national agricultural policy is often based on the argument that, as a ‘food island’, we are a special case. This claim is severely dented by FAO data for 2011, which shows that Ireland is in fact a net importer of food calories – shockingly, we import food calories for 1.4 million people more than we export for. Rather than Ireland feeding the world, we’re not even feeding ourselves, according to research to be presented later this month in NUI Galway by Dr. Colin Doyle.

Shifting away from an excessively meat-based diet will directly benefit human health, while reducing hunger among the poor, easing animal welfare concerns and offering farmers a genuinely sustainable future.

High-tech alternatives, such as ‘Beyond Meat’ are fast emerging, using plant-based ingredients to closely mimic the taste, texture and smells that make meat so alluring, while trimming the health impacts and global environmental havoc our ancient carnal predilections are now wreaking.

 

ThinkOrSwim is a blog focusing on the inter-related crises involving climate change, sustainability, resource depletion, energy and biodiversity loss
This entry was posted in Biodiversity, Global Warming, Irish Focus, Sustainability and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to One man’s meat is another’s global ecological calamity

  1. Coilin MacLochlainn says:

    Brilliant article, John; a lot of new information there and many new angles to consider. Ireland is a ‘special case’ in another sense, however: it is one of the few countries that still refuses to take enough meaningful steps to make serious inroads into our greenhouse gas emissions. This is verging on the criminal. We should be tried in an international court for this, because we are a special case: we are a nation refusing to behave and play our part.

    I am ashamed of our government and our begging bowl attitude to climate change. We are a rich country and it wouldn’t hurt us to cut back on our fossil fuel use and convert to renewables. We have to go to renewables anyway, one way or the other, as the oil is going to run out, and we have to complete the process by 2030, because if we continue to burn fossil fuels until then, we will f*ck up the planet for the next 400,000 years, starting in about 100 years’ time, when most life on Earth will be wiped out, including most of us probably.

    So where is our plan? Why isn’t the government on top of it? Nothing is more important, for Ireland, or for the rest of the world, than that every country gets on top of this problem right now. We cannot look for exemptions, we are one of the richest countries, we have absolutely no excuse, we must act decisively and quickly. It is profoundly depressing to listen to current affairs programmes on Irish television and radio channels and realise that the people planning, producing, editing and presenting these programmes are devoting all of their energy and talent to topics that are almost irrelevant in the broader scheme of things. I wouldn’t mind that if they were also addressing the most important, the most crucial, the intrinsically vital issues of the day, but they almost never go near those topics and even when they do they make sure they are not dealing with them in a realistic way but in a way that firmly supports the status quo and ignores the need to change, to change everything, to change the way we do everything. We have to get back to basics and our media are failing us completely. Except for Duncan Stewart’s Eco Eye. Hats off to that man, what a fantastic effort he is making, and what a brilliant result he might achieve if people, communities, local councils and the government listened to him, and learned, and then went to work.

    But that won’t be enough.

  2. John Gibbons says:

    Thanks for your comment Coilin, and glad you enjoyed the article. I concur with your sense of shame and outrage at Ireland’s behaviour. In terms of climate change, we are in essences behaving like a ‘rogue state’. I often wonder why our politicians seem so ill-equipped to tackle large-scale and long term issues like this, and wonder if our multi-seat system, which forces even the intelligent TDs to behave like county councillors, fixing potholes and getting people their basic entitlements. This system leaves little room for strategic thinkers or planners, and those who do are usually ruthlessly punished by an often-refractory electorate.

    This is a classic vicious circle, that could take a generation or two to break, yet time is the very element we no longer have. I also share your frustration with our media; there really is no decent excuse for the truly abysmal level of coverage the world’s no.1 existential crisis actually receives. There are one or two honourable exceptions, and yes, Duncan Stewart is chief among them, but ‘environment’ continues to be treated as a media and political cul de sac, something ‘serious’ players shun as a career-killer.

  3. Leonard B. says:

    Another fine article John, thanks for reminding us, yet again, of the bigger picture and what’s at stake. Some of the stats in your article are simply staggering. Your point that people really haven’t a clue just how damaging the global beef and dairy industry is is well made. I for one had no idea, and it really does make you stop and think. I haven’t seen Cowspiracy yet, but have heard it’s an eye opener – having read this article, will certainly have a look.

  4. Tim Eliot says:

    “Change in human behaviour is difficult, but not impossible, to achieve”. This does seem to be the nub of the issue every time we encounter any climate or ecological issue. The way we see the world is quite different to the way the world actually is.

    Failing to notice that what we casually describe as ‘resources’ are not just stuff we can use to make more stuff out of, but are the building blocks of life itself is a case in point. We are smashing up these blocks like a toddler demolishing a Lego house, and with about as much awareness, it seems, either. Good piece, by the way. I hadn’t really thought that much about the food side of the eco equation, and was quite taken aback by some of your conclusions.

  5. John Gibbons says:

    @Leonard Feedback appreciated. I share your sense of (almost) disbelief at the global scale of impacts from two sectors of the agri industry which receive little scrutiny, huge political support and massive transfers of subsidies from general taxpayers. The EU taxpayer is pouring some €2 billion p.a. into Ireland in CAP supports, much of which is simply propping up loss-making meat operations. At the same time, the same EU is exhorting its member states to urgent slash emissions. These two positions are mutually incompatible.

  6. John Gibbons says:

    @ Tim It’s a theme I find myself returning to, over and over – climate change, for all its gravity, is in the final analysis a symptom of one species’ utterly dysfunctional relationship with the rest of the world. Maybe it’s just a fatal flaw in our evolutionary design that we have been engineered to be clever enough to sequester the entire natural world, but lacking in the critical intelligence to understand the dire consequences of such power. Fans of Greek tragedy would suggest this dilemma is very old hat indeed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *