To eat (some meat) or to drive, it is necessary to choose
By Denis Delbecq • September 8th, 2008 in 9:34 · Category: Actuality
To bring its stone in the struggle against climatic warming, it is necessary to make abstinence of meat one time a week. It is the appeal which was made by Rajendra Pachauri, the boss of the intergovernmental Group of experts for the climate of the UNO (GIEC). Newly reelected for a second six-year-old principal, the Indian-vegetarian researcher, it is important to specify him underlined the importance of greenhouse gas emissions linked to animal husbandry, explaining that it was undoubtedly the least restrictive and easiest means for every citizen to participate in general effort. A portion of meat of less a week, according to Pachauri, these are [every year] 170 kg of carbon dioxide avoided, the 1100 km equivalent covered by car.
In total, animal husbandry causes gas 18 % human programmes of with greenhouse effect, or more than transport! Pachauri, who gets worried about a doubling expected from the worldwide production of meat, recommends to give up using it one time a week, then abolishing it progressively of the diet.
Animal husbandry uses much more resources than the culture of cereals. And notably of fossil energy, because the request of meat encourages to dope outputs with manure and pesticides, fabricated from oil, and augments the usage of tractors. Besides, the led animal husbandry a bigger erosion of soil and augments deforestation. And finally, the animals issue important quantities of gas with greenhouse effect, as the methane of ruminants.
Guardian reminded on Saturday that 2,2 calories of energy are needed to produce a calorie of plant protein, four calories for the chicken, and fifty for beef. The British daily underlined that an eater of meat will make more for the planet by becoming vegetarian that by leaving his sports car for a more sober vehicle.
In Great Britain, earth of election of the organisations of defence of the animals, Commiseration in World Farming asked the government to act to bring down the consumption of 60 % meat before 2020, underlining that the medium British citizen absorbs twice more animal proteins than what recommends the World Health Organisation. Because there are sometimes choices which are winning for the planet and the individuals: to struggle against the excess of meat, it is also to fight cardiovascular diseases and obesity …
Picture: © Denis Delbecq
Article read 4,586 times. Tags:élevage, GIEC, climatic rechauffement, meat
Comments in 
It is a report of a brain tumour of the FAO of 2006.
You will know while typing google "Livestock' s Long Shadow".
Especially, a summary of the report is available on http://www.fao.org/newsroom/fr/news/2006/1000448/index.html
and the complete report (19 Mbytes, 390 pages): http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
General idea is really there, but equivalence 1100km from car a portion of meat really seems to be an audacious extrapolation.
you know what it is possible all to say pourqoui to change the meat not by other plant proteins but it is to apply by pesonne! this remains only of idea saying solutions but it is inapplicable because it is possible not to persuade the world tt!!
in more I am not ashamed to eat whale's meat, when I am in the countries where it is not forbidden.
alone shadow in the picture: the substitutes of meat with the soya as bio-hamburgers or sausages of soya and also all other health foods it is so good that they have tendency to eat it more, difficult to eliminate the overweight in these conditions, but finished excess of choléstérol and of uric acid …
for me to eat some meat is an act which contributes to suffering of stockers, to climatic warming and to pollution of soil, and to increase of inequality between the men, in short an act of perfect selfishness
But having seen this article, and 1100 km by car, I am really emu, is this truth? can etre yes can not? but anyway it is a lot, méme 100 km and it is grandiose, therefore I think that solution is not to abolish her completely but of there limited the consomation!! how? by eating of the poissant by example, it is rich in omega3, and this detruit the benefit of cholesterol which formed has leave can etre of the piece of meat for our planéte I think that it is a raisonable sacrifice has make!! but étre vegetarien, me to you the deconseil of a point of medical seeing, therefore I agree and not in agreement with this article on some things …
and thank you doctor for information.
In fact, Limousine, you know, the one that it is possible to be in more than 4 insides it is also a cow. She is scabby, comes back indoors. The bull is a myth in his sides. She is cute with her nice eyelashes but that's true which she pête too often: to us to see if it is possible to eat it a little less often. I do not say this for my companion, she would not accept her.
it is called: “a limit grass the burps of the cows”, Australian researchers have decouvert a substance which inhibits the expression of an enzyme in the plant, which makes her more digestible and reduit so the production of methane by the intestinal flora of the cattle: all in all, it is a grass "antiburp" has destination of ruminants!!.c' is 1000 times mieu that to lose it of some meat …
A week? without unity of time it is difficult to realise.
I am becoming a convert to veganism, and to véganisme.
I encourage you to enquire and to think, to decide in your soul and conscience to continue living with the head in the sand or not.
When they well realise what is given support to by eating some meat (between other animal consumption), they come from it to stop naturally.
A very complete booklet to be read on this site:
http://www.panx.net/web/avis/
And the video ' Meet your meat ' which should of itself put back in place ideas:
http://www.vegetarisme.fr/Articles/MeetYourMeatVideo.php
Courage and strength of character is needed to live differently from the majority.
It is however salutary for the planet, and for the right to the freedom of each and every one, every merged living beings, particularly the sensitive beings.
Hush up about your cultural landmarks for instant, time to make the TRUE point.
Still knack which serves has tell her in a soiree foie gras!!
Still the vegetarisme I includes but the vegetalisme you eat what apres? some soya? great …
I see not how you can abolish overnight eggs, milk, meat, the fish you can always drink cappuccinos at least or c so proscribed?
I think qu on the contrary ca spoils you the sante, if c to replace natural nutriments of products d animal origins with pillules proteinees and other one vitamins of synthese I see not l interet!
Why this choice of the vegetalisme?
The best that I could say to you is to download the booklet in the first link which I gave, and to read it.
This will be better than a long speech on this site.
I am opened to discuss it, but it is better to have no interlocuteu pointed for it.
I wish you therefore good reading and they discuss again it afterwards if you wish it. You will have more elements.
P.S: I did not stop overnight, it is rather difficult to accomplish.
P.S.: To eat of the vegetable is very various. There are many ways of preparing his meals. And veganism is not dangerous for health. This, it is an idée reçue (as so many others!). All nutriments necessary for the good functioning of our organsime are present in vegetables, cérélaes, oleaginous plants, fruits, …
P.S.S.S: You will be able to read in the booklet that the human being, according to a lot analysis, does not seem to be made to have a regime of carnivora. We would rather be adapted to a regime frugivore.
And I t inquietes no am not pointed, just a bit curious and carnivorous activist and hedoniste
PS: I am from the country Charollais
This day then I think that the mammal will be close to redemption.
Flavien
Solution for warming: bury under stable geological layers all vegetarians who contribute to warm up minds and climate, due to their simplistic theories and their sometimes foul-smelling gaseous clearing. (just as much besides as those of the classical omnivorous animals, do not make me say what I do not have say).
See you soon and think of the négawatts!
- to those who want to replace the meat of beef with the sheep or the pork: know that the sheep as goat is a ruminant, therefore producer of methane, and the pork produces an imporante quantity of escréments and therefore his intensive animal husbandry poses problems of pollution of rivers in regions where the layer of earth is slim (ie: the plinth of granite rock for example is close to the surface of the soil, as in Brittany).
- in the vegetarian and vegan, who recommend, in raisonables cases where they want to replace (constituents of) proteins which the man does not synthetize naturally by some soya or the fish, know that the soya comes from far away and that its cost énegétique is negligible in no way (because produced essentielement in the United States, not need to make a drawing) and that a lot of kinds of fish are in process of redemption because of the surpêche …
- in this pesonnes also who, by “knowledge of consience” does not eat meat anymore by ecological worry: if you bought on the market of your city or village, to a local producer, to a small butcher, your meat, then this one would be of better quality (no conservatives, not very fatty), less expensive, and often produced in a respectful way by environment and by animal, she would not have gone through the thousands of Km …
Finally the most reasonable would perhaps be to limit the consomation of meat, but especially if at all possible to use public transport, bike, car low consumption, and especially to go out of hyperconsumption by thinking on what is superficial (cométiques, hi-tech!), useful, necessary, buy local products>> the Earth, your moral conscience and your purchasing power will come better!
Can the growth be infinite in the finished world?
Good reflexion