Beef about Climate Change

Here is something we can all do; eat less meat. Here is why.

Anthropogenic global warming skeptics are fond of pointing out that a lot of greenhouse gas emissions come from animals (in the form of methane) and suggest that this “natural” effect is not anthropogenic. But a lot of the animals involved are livestock for human consumption. An interesting article in the New York Times on January 27th points out that Americans alone eat nearly 10 billion animals a year. Worldwide we ate about 284 million tons in 2007, up about 300% from 1961, and this is expected to increase double by 2050.

My vegan sister has often told me how inefficient it is to eat meat, but I had not realized the extent of the problem. The NYT article has some interesting statistics:
· 6 ounces of beef produces 16 times the greenhouse gases as a vegetarian meal with the same number of calories.
· If each of us in the US were to cut our meat consumption by just 20% it would be equivalent to everyone switching from a Camry to a Prius.
· Producing 2.2 pounds of beef uses as much energy as burning a 100 watt bulb for nearly 20 days. (Not sure why they chose 2.2 pounds; maybe converted from a kilo. We eat about 4 pounds of meat, poultry, and fish each week.)

Then there is the problem of deforestation in places like Brazil to make room for cattle. 30% of the earth’s ice-free land is involved in livestock production.

For the full NYT article see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=meat+guzzler&st=nyt&oref=slogin.

Eating less meat need not be a hardship. Indeed it will make us healthier. I like my meat but it does not need to be the biggest thing on my plate. I’d rather have it in meals like stew or curry or in a meat sauce with pasta, where a pound of meat probably is good for about 6 meals. On the rare occasion that I have a steak I have the smallest filet (without bacon wrap) which is usually 6 ounces and more than enough. I reckon I eat about 60% of the national average; two Camry-to-Prius swaps, which makes me feel a bit better about my RX/7.

Gallons per Mile?

Here’s something quick and easy the government could do. The Europeans measure gas mileage in liters per 100 kilometers, which makes a lot of sense. After all, when we set out on a journey we do not decide how much gas to buy and then determine how far to go; the constant is the journey and the variable is the amount of gas we need.

Changing to gallons per 100 miles – I am not bold enough to suggest we go metric! – could also have a serious impact on our perception of fuel economy and thereby on our carbon footprint. The reason is that our brains don’t process reciprocals well. Consider this table comparing the two measures (I have rounded a little in a couple of cases):

12.5 mpg = 8 gallons per 100 miles
14 = 7 gallons per 100 miles
17 = 6 gallons per 100 miles
20 = 5 gallons per 100 miles
25 = 4 gallons per 100 miles
33 = 3 gallons per 100 miles
50 = 2 gallons per 100 miles

Note that replacing a 12.5 mpg gas guzzler with a less profligate17 mpg vehicle saves twice as much as replacing a 33 mpg compact with a 50 mpg hybrid. Not that I am against high-efficiency vehicles, but I wonder whether the emphasis should be at the other end of the scale. If we could get everyone up to say 25 mpg we would be doing an enormous service. Recent legislation to change CAFE standards to an average of 35 mpg will of course help.

That little word “average” invites caution though; you need to average the reciprocals, which is exactly what CAFE does. So, in a way the EPA already uses gallons per mile for its calculations. They just don’t want to tell you. Why not change the way we display it on the new car sticker?