A new route
the question "really something we can do as individuals to achieve sustainable consumption?" the answer is "Yes, not only that, but what we can do on the front of the choice of our food is definitely more powerful than what we can do in every other field. "
It 's this the way forward: Change our eating habits to have a much lower environmental and social impact.
Food and climate impact
E 'was published in April 2008 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, a article by two researchers at Carnegie Mellon University "Kilometre and food-related climate impact of food choices in the U.S." [1].
In it, the scientists explain that the studies on "sustainable consumption" offer consumers an increasing number of information concerning the impact on the environment in general and on climate particular, of their consumption choices. Many of these studies have concluded that the impact of individuals is due to three main factors: the food, the energy used at home, and transport.
Of these three factors, that of " food ", that is what everyone chooses to eat, is the most" powerful "because:
1. is that in quantitative terms has the greatest impact.
2. Has the highest level of personal choice, because it depends on the regulations, the availability of public transportation or alternative energy sources, etc.. What to eat on the individual consumer has full power.
3. You can apply already now, is not in the medium or long term as may other aspects that involve changes in infrastructure, goods available in the technology used.
vs 100% vegetable. omnivore: 8 to 1
The association of German consumers Foodwatch published in August 2008 a report on the impact of agriculture and the greenhouse effect [2]. The study was carried out by the German Institute for Ecological Economy Research (ioew), and took into account the CO2 emissions resulting from the cultivation of animal feed, the use of pasture for livestock and manure produced by the animals themselves (excrement and flatulence).
The comparison to be easily understandable to the public is explained in terms of "km equivalent" traveled by car (a BMW, to be precise), and then explains how many kilometers traveled by car equals 1 kg of meat, 1 kg of wheat, etc..
This means taking account of all productive activities that are used to grow feed for animals (including the use of energy, water, chemicals, etc..), Transport, manage the herds, slaughterhouses, and so on., the amount of greenhouse gas emissions due to these activities is equivalent to the greenhouse gases emitted by a certain amount of kilometers made BMW. In this way you can understand how pollutants, overall, the production of meat and other "foods of animal origin".
Calculating the total of "BMW km" equivalent to a diet omnivore, a vegetarian, a vegan, in a year, the results are: 100% vegetable food (vegan) 629 km, 2427 km vegetarian, omnivorous feeding 4758 km. As already known from other studies, therefore, the type of power is more environmentally friendly 100% vegetable. Power lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet has an impact 4 times higher than omnivorous 8 times higher.
There are no "technical solutions", it must reduce consumption
Although these results are now released quite often in newspapers and magazines, people seem to expect that there is some technology that solves the problem and allow them to remain unchanged, their eating habits. But it does not exist and never will exist, because the problem is inherent in the transformation from plant to animal, which generates an enormous loss, as explained in the panel devoted to the environmental impact.
The only real solution is in a decline - the most conspicuous possible - the consumption of meat, milk and dairy products and eggs, all foods that require breeding.
Exhortations from the world of science
Here's a brief roundup of articles of invited scientists to reduce the consumption of animal foods to reduce drastically our impact on the environment - in addition to the previously mentioned report of Foodwatch, which contains in its conclusions, explicitly, that invitation.
Less animal protein for humanity
The switch to vegetable proteins offer many advantages, especially in the energy field.
The world needs a "protein transition" without necessarily all become vegetarians, is essential in the diet is definitely beginning to prefer the proteins of plant origin.
And 'This is the conclusion of the study Profetas (Protein Foods, Environment, Technology And Society) funded by the Dutch Academy of Sciences and conducted by researchers at the University of Amsterdam and other Dutch universities set out in' The Science article of April 2006 [3].
Food, farming, energy, climate change and health
In the September 2007 issue of the international scientific journal "The Lancet, "the article" Food, livestock, energy, climate change and health "[4] shows how these aspects are interrelated and how urgent it is a drastic reduction in meat consumption.
Researchers After examining the impact it has on the greenhouse production of animal foods, say the only solution is therefore to reduce the consumption of animal products from countries richer, and not to exceed a threshold for developing countries, so that all countries converge to the same level of consumption, much lower than the current rich countries: not more than 90 grams of meat per capita per day (while currently is 101 grams of the global average of cui47 grams in developing countries and 224 grams in developed countries).
To get to 90 grams in developed countries it is therefore more than halve the consumption of meat, specifically to reach a consumer that is 40% compared with the current. The scientists' conclusion is that the problem of climate change requires strong responses.
As the authors of the article, the objection that the decrease in consumption and convergence towards a common standard can not work because people like to eat meat, you must respond with the urgency and the dire need for change to stop a more serious problem of food preferences of individuals.
the most informed people in rich countries, especially in Britain, are already proving to want to reduce the consumption of animal foods, it seems mainly to prevent the risk of cardiovascular disease. To help people make that choice, say the authors, it will be useful to eliminate government subsidies for the production of animal feed (corn and soybeans) and livestock, so that consumer prices reflect real costs, and then increases. This would also help to divert crops to poor countries, per il diretto consumo umano, riducendo la "concorrenza" tra la coltivazione di cibo per gli animali e quella di cibo per gli umani.
Gli studiosi concludono dicendo che la proposta porterebbe a molti effetti collaterali positivi: una dieta più sana, migliore qualità dell'aria, maggiore disponibilità di acqua, una razionalizzazione dell'uso dell'energia e della produzione di cibo.
"Non mangiare carne, va' in bici, sii un consumatore frugale" - ecco come fermare il riscaldamento globale.
Queste le parole di Rajendra Pachauri, premio Laureate and director of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change United Nations, handed down January 15, 2008 at a press conference in Paris.
The dossier issued by the IPCC in 2007 points out "the importance of lifestyle change" to combat global warming. The Director of the IPCC, keeping a vegetarian himself, also said: "It 's something that the IPCC was afraid to say earlier, but now we have said."
It goes on to ask: "Please eat less meat, meat and 'a product with high-carbon" and also emphasizing that high consumption of meat are harmful to health.
References
[1] Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews, Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States, Environ. Sci Technol., 16 April 2008
[2] Foodwatch, Klimaretter Bio?, 25 Aug 2008
[3] Less animal protein for Humanity, Scientific American, April 11 2006
[4] Anthony J McMichael, John W Powles, Colin D Butler, Ricardo Uauy, Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health, The Lancet, September 13, 2007
0 comments:
Post a Comment