The UN reported last year that livestock accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than transport, which emits 13.5%. It has been argued that these sorts of figures mean that it is more important for us to stop eating meat than it is for us to cut down on driving and flying - is that right? Peter Lipman from Sustrans argues the case for giving up both.

Original article reproduced with permission from Every Action Counts Green Gauge Issue 11www.everyactioncounts.org.uk

"I wish we really had plenty of time [to achieve zero emissions].  However the latest reports of the speed of climate change, such as the astonishingly earlier than predicted melting of the Artic ice, just confirm again that we have to act right now. "  

The UN reported last year (Livestock's Long Shadow, UN 2006) that livestock accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than transport, which emits 13.5%.  This isn't just cows burping and emitting methane  - it includes emissions generated by fertiliser (these days made from natural gas), feed production, deforestation to open up pastures and other associated sources as well as the emissions from the livestock themselves. 

And it isn't just whether we should eat meat - its also what sort should we eat.  Just recently a report in that bastion of the barbecue, Australia, suggested that (as the papers put it) "Eating roo could cut gas emissions ... Hop to it: time to switch from beef to kangaroo".  According to the report, Paths to a Low Carbon Future, slicing beef consumption by 20 per cent, while "politically challenging", would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia by 15 million tonnes from 1990 levels.

It has been argued that these sorts of figures mean that it is more important for us to stop eating meat than it is for us to cut down on driving and flying - is that right?  Before looking at that question, I'll declare my biases.  I not only work for Sustrans promoting sustainable travel but am vegan too.

I'm going to start to look at this issue by briefly considering the differing effects of the gases from livestock and transport.  Emissions from transport are mainly CO2, the dominant greenhouse gas.  This takes a long time to get up high into the atmosphere, where it has the most damaging effect.  On the other hand emissions from livestock are dominated by methane - which has more of a heat trapping effect than CO2 (being over 20 times as powerful) but stops playing that role much more quickly - in a decade or so as opposed to CO2, which hangs about causing problems for a hundred years and more. 

So if we're looking at the long term, perhaps CO2 matters more?  Against that, the more we can reduce our emissions right now, the better.  Maybe we should go back to looking at the scale of the challenge posed by climate change. 

Current scientific consensus appears to be that we should do everything we can to keep the increase in temperature to below two degrees - partially because we hope that by doing that we'll have a good chance of avoiding positive feedback loops (such as it getting warmer in the arctic ... leading to ice melting ... leading to more heat being absorbed by dark oceans than used to be reflected by white ice and snow ... leading to it getting warmer ... leading to more ice melting ... in a self-perpetuating cycle).

Do we know what do we have to do to make sure we keep the increase below two degrees?  Buried in a report earlier this year from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an absolutely extraordinary piece of research.  The IPPC researchers, using "coupled modelling" (which basically means modelling including the impact of some feedback loops) concluded that to stay at under a 2 degree increase in temperature humanity has to zero its emissions by 2060. 

That isn't saying that we have to achieve zero emissions from burning fossil fuels in our cars, planes and power stations (which might seem hard enough) - it's zero from everything we do - from cutting down trees, from using fertiliser (back to natural gas) and from raising livestock.  Interestingly, when I showed a draft of this article to some friends, one said "But 2060 is over 50 years away - we've got plenty of time, there's no need to worry yet". 

I wish we really had plenty of time.  However the latest reports of the speed of climate change (such as the astonishingly earlier than predicted melting of the Artic ice) just confirm again that we have to act right now.

How do we do that - and feel that our actions are meaningful?  For me, the answer is that we'll have to live far more locally based lives.  This "relocalisation" is coming onto people's radars through a variety of sources, but particularly the Transition Town movement.  The impetus for that movement is not only the urgent need to do everything we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also the necessity of making our communities resilient in the face of peak oil.  For me it is clear, resilient lives will be certain to include both travelling less far (and less fast) and eating less meat.

So if we are going to take meaningful steps towards a zero emission future, and if that means that we're just going to have to cut down on eating meat as well as motorised travel, then instead of trying to decide about how we should choose between these options we should put our energy into working out how to enjoy ourselves in any event. 

In fact, my main initial reaction to the question of "cars or meat" is to wonder why it is that these types of questions so often are framed with an "either or" approach when we should really be talking about "both and".   Isn't a more useful question "once we've addressed the relatively simple changes of eating less meat and reducing driving, what are the next things we should be thinking about?"

And what about peak oil?  I'd say that this is another enormously important factor which is coming into play with regard to both meat eating and driving.  As it has become more and more clear that oil supplies are not going to keep up with oil demand, there has been a dash to produce more biofuels, often by converting foodstuffs into fuel.  This has already led to rapid increases in food prices (leading to the "tortilla riots" in Mexico when the price of corn tripled).  The UN special rapporteur on the right to food has now called for a five-year moratorium on all initiatives to develop biofuels through converting food into fuel - which seems absolutely right to me. 

But as world grain reserves fall to worryingly low levels, maybe even that "fuel or food" question isn't the main one - maybe we should be asking whether it is right to use grain to feed animals to make meat for a few when the same food could be used directly to feed many more mouths?

Peter Lipman

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ 

See this article, and many more on the Every Action Counts website

What do you think? Write your comments below - or explore the following articles on climatex.org

• Food in a climate of disparity - how will food production be impacted for the most vulnerable?
• Low Carbon Communities in Oxon
• Gardening in the Global Greenhouse
• Climate, Food and Agriculture slides
• See the Vegan Society's  Eating the World booklet for more info

Related Climate-X pages

• Low carbon communities - Across Oxfordshire, individuals, neighbourhoods, villages, and towns are taking the low carbon challenge into their own hands. Meet some of them here, get inspired and watch as the ideas spread and grow.
• Low Carbon Travel in Oxon - Article on Climatex.org