Comments on: Energy and Global Warming News for October 27: Climate change endangers human health

By: paulm

paulm — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:28:50 +0000

nice vid worth watching…

America’s Energy Future
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/Energy/index.htm

By: paulm

paulm — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:33:13 +0000

Peak oil is going to take care of the food issue soon enough (and extreme weather).

Its just going to be too expensive for the average westerner to maintain the current level of meat consumption. This could happen within 5yrs easily.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:30:10 +0000

“Already, agriculture accounts for 1/3 of total greenhouse gas emissions, largely from deforestation, livestock, carbon-intensive transportation, and rice paddies.” from
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/ climate/ 2009/ 10/ 21/ assessing-global-metrics-for-agriculture/

By: lgcarey

lgcarey — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:42:10 +0000

Given the overwhelming strength of the industrial ag lobby in the U.S., their general animosity toward any CO2 restrictions, and their position that just being carved out of cap and trade is not enough to make them happy (they want some more big fat incentives for biofuels, etc.), the whole “CO2-restrictions-will-drive-up-the-cost-of-meat” argument is guaranteed to raise their hackles, and hence is not a discussion that is helpful to actually getting climate legislation enacted in the U.S.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:30:53 +0000

A price on carbon would be welcome, however agriculture seems to have been downplayed in most discussions. The image is that reducing animal foods from the diet is one of those things that extreme people do. That is probably why Stern and Pachauri have been speaking out.
And as for chicken, it takes about 3kg of feed to make 1kg chicken flesh, and that flesh only has 1/4 the protein that the feed had. Because of this equation livestock agriculture has played a significant role in deforestation.
This worldwatch article suggests that the role of livestock agriculture in climate change has been vastly underestimated:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:27:01 +0000

Eating lass red meat has a greater climate impact than all those other things, exceept maybe not having pet dogs.

Even pork creates less global arming gases than beef; chicken lots less.

Might help your pocketbook as well.

By: GFW

GFW — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:07:39 +0000

Good comment Ric.

By: Ric Merritt

Ric Merritt — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:35:32 +0000

I can’t think of a better way to scare off the average citizen than getting on ones high horse and protraying vegetarianism as having a unique place in efforts to fix global warming. Sure, there’s a connection, but it is NOT unique. A greenhouse gas molecule does not care how it got into the atmosphere.

If some want to eat less meat, or none, I’ve no objection: I eat far less than I grew up with. How would I weigh skipping some meat consumption against skipping several thousand miles of plane travel, or keeping a (meat-eating!) pet, or choosing what size house to live in?

Answer: by putting a price on carbon and heeding the market signal. Getting your knickers in a twist about other issues dear to your heart is the worst way to beat global warming. Other arguments for vegetarianism should be articulated away from this discussion, without unwarranted emphasis on linkage, lest we increase the chance of failure in an area more important by many orders of magnitude.

By: Gail

Gail — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:37:49 +0000

I wish I could find more studies like this one: http://www.stanford.edu/ group/ efmh/ jacobson/ ClimateHealth4.pdf

And speaking of eating meat, I also read an article the other day that said the average pet dog has more than double the annual carbon footprint as a Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometers.

Woof!

By: Anna Marie

Anna Marie — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:33:16 +0000

It seems that climate change not only has important effects for human health, it can also lead to unsettled populations and serious security challenges for the global community.

Check out the following op-ed in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by Admiral Lee Gunn, President of the American Security Project – Gunn argues that climate change will become one of the most pressing national security challenges in the years to come: http://www.thebulletin.org/ web-edition/ op-eds/ climate-change-could-be-the-next-great-military-threat.

Excerpts:

“Climate-intensified conflict between mobile populations seeking fresh water amid wanton state instability may prompt future policy makers to deploy U.S. forces not only to combat extremism in the region, but also to provide aid to the hungry and displaced.”

He believes that the U.S. government must plan – as soon as possible – for the new contingencies associated with climate change, including increased humanitarian crises and mass migrations, conflict over increasingly scarce resources, extremism, and government weakness and failure. Admiral Gunn cites the situation at Diego Garcia as just one example of how military logistics and strategies will be effected by climate change:

“ The British Indian Ocean Territory of Diego Garcia, for example, is home to a critical staging facility for U.S. and British naval and air forces operating in the Middle East and Central Asia. But this atoll sits just a few feet above sea level. If sea levels rise as projected, the facility could be lost, forcing the U.S. and British militaries to adapt and adjust their logistics and operations throughout the region.”

He recommends the following actions:
• “Prepare military officers and troops to address the security and humanitarian needs of resource-stressed populations and climate refugees;
• “Expand global public health programs (e.g., malarial eradication);
• “Negotiate an agreement with Canada and Mexico to govern the use of fresh water in North America;
• “Lead the world in developing conflict-resolution mechanisms to mediate between climate change’s winners and losers.”