"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."- Albert Einstein
For those unaware, COP 17 is shorthand for the "Conference Of Parties." This past conference was the 17th of it's kind, bringing leaders from all nations together. This year's meetings took place in Durban, South Africa. The 2 week conference ended on the 11th of December. The COP's goal is to negotiate caps on the emissions of greenhouse gases. They are looking for stringent limits on the developed nations and bigger polluters (the usual suspects: EU nations, US, Canada, etc). Interestingly, there are waivers (on carbon caps) for what are deemed to be "developing nations."
I was surprised to find out that China and India fall under this umbrella. Groups of smaller nations band together, to strenghten their voices in these negotiations. Small island nations created their own group as did a number of African nations. Another goal of the COP 17 was to establish a fund that large countries will donate into. Donations would go to poorer nations to allow them to invest in green technology and initiatives. And, for those unaware, the Kyoto Protocol came out of the 1997 "Conference Of Parties."
Over the 2nd week of the talks, Democracy Now broadcasted from Durban. So, over the 2nd week, I took in 5 hours of coverage on the meetings. Democracy Now interviewed many scientists, activists, and bureaucrats. I learned that the situation is more dire than I originally thought. In short, massive reductions in carbon emissions is a must. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are saying a 50% reduction in emissions by 2015 is needed to fend off even more drastic climate changes than we experience now.
Journalists on the ground have said that the United States, and a few other nations, stood in the way of a strong, binding deal. COP17 ended with an agreement to meet again and negotiate a new deal by 2015, with complaince beginning in 2020. This the best that could be reached, even though IPCC is saying reductions in carbon emissions should be starting almost immediately. Those attending the talks are calling our President, "George W. Obama", because his stance is no different than that of the last administration. Take a look at this interview with a climate change denier from the US (1st video). He's not alone, there are many that do not believe the climate science. Here is a sample of the counter arguments.
So that is the background on COP and the US's stance, let me get to what I think is missing from the discussion. I decided to look at this, because I had a chat with a friend, who is a vegetarian and she was not aware of these facts. So, I figured others might not be aware. Did you know that everything that goes into the process of bringing meat (and chicken, pork, etc) to market causes more greenhouse emissions that all of our transportation sources combined? Consider that for a second, all of our transportation sources cause less pollution than what we eat. In 2006, the United Nations compiled a study called "Livestock's Long Shadow" which detailed meat eating's effect on total emissions. I had trouble believing it at first. However, consider that in bringing meat to market there is massive deforestation to clear space for livestock and for the food that will eventually feed them.
After the animals are slaughtered, they will have to be refrigerated for long stretches of time, while they can travel up to thousands of miles to be eventually sold. At the actual supermarkets, they will also have to refrigerated there as well. All together, this becomes a very energy intensive process. I think we all know that cows produce methane. I was not aware of just how much. They release about 280 liters of methane per day. And, there are 98 million heads of cattle in the US alone. 98 million (heads of cattle) x 280 liters = 27.440 billion liters of methane a day. This number shocked me. And, these numbers cover just the cows in the United States. It does not factor in any other animal type, any other nations, or the pollution caused from the massive amounts of manure produced.
In addition to the sheer amount of methane put into the atmosphere, many people are not aware that methane is, in the long term (100 years), 30 times more damaging to the environment, than carbon dioxide (CO2). If measured over a 25 year period (a common timeframe, when looking at climate change forecasting), it is 70 times more damaging than CO2. During the 5 hours of coverage from Durban, only one person mentioned diet as a cause (or a part-solution). It turned out that the person that mentioned this was the Chair of the IPCC (see, below).
This is why it was the missing piece of the argument. There were so many people, from many nations all calling on governments to come up with a deal, while ignoring a large cause of the problem. You're omitting one of the greatest causal factors, while searching for a remedy. Its just irresponsible to not push that point. Being clear, I am aware that an incredible amount political will is needed to address this problem. But, to not talk about the dietary aspect of this problem is reckless. I can only come up with one reason for the omission. I believe if you tell people that they too are part of the problem, you immediately shift responsibility to them to change something. And, that scares people. On some level, it may be easier to battle against large governments and corporations than to change yourself or call on others to change. I am speculating a bit, as to what the people I saw from COP 17 coverage do in their own lives. They may lead vegetarian lifestyles. But, they certainly did not illuminate these facts within the climate equation. And, I do not believe this is common knowledge.
Where would be a better place than at a 2 week climate conference? If you don't talk about it publicly then, then when would you? This whole spectacle made me think of Al Gore. I'm pretty certain he is a meat eater. He would have a tough time telling folks to change daily habits, when he is not doing anything differently himself. Instead, he talks of a lack of leadership in government, and the need to change from there, while omitting this large causal factor. Being fair, in some of his less visible interviews, he will mention diet. But, not one word is uttered in more mainstream/visible appearances. In "The Inconvenient Truth" there is no mention of diet. In his recent project, "24 Hours of (Climate) Reality", Gore spoke for 1 hour at the end of this 24 hour look at climate change around the world and I waited patiently as nothing was said about meat eating. I watched this whole speech (yeah, I had nothing to do that night, ok). In a weird way, Gore is a microcosm of the climate fight. This battle is being fought without all our possible weapons or information.
I will revisit this, because there is just so much within this story. But, I do hope you found this informative.
Thanks for checking it out,
James
This is why it was the missing piece of the argument. There were so many people, from many nations all calling on governments to come up with a deal, while ignoring a large cause of the problem. You're omitting one of the greatest causal factors, while searching for a remedy. Its just irresponsible to not push that point. Being clear, I am aware that an incredible amount political will is needed to address this problem. But, to not talk about the dietary aspect of this problem is reckless. I can only come up with one reason for the omission. I believe if you tell people that they too are part of the problem, you immediately shift responsibility to them to change something. And, that scares people. On some level, it may be easier to battle against large governments and corporations than to change yourself or call on others to change. I am speculating a bit, as to what the people I saw from COP 17 coverage do in their own lives. They may lead vegetarian lifestyles. But, they certainly did not illuminate these facts within the climate equation. And, I do not believe this is common knowledge.
Where would be a better place than at a 2 week climate conference? If you don't talk about it publicly then, then when would you? This whole spectacle made me think of Al Gore. I'm pretty certain he is a meat eater. He would have a tough time telling folks to change daily habits, when he is not doing anything differently himself. Instead, he talks of a lack of leadership in government, and the need to change from there, while omitting this large causal factor. Being fair, in some of his less visible interviews, he will mention diet. But, not one word is uttered in more mainstream/visible appearances. In "The Inconvenient Truth" there is no mention of diet. In his recent project, "24 Hours of (Climate) Reality", Gore spoke for 1 hour at the end of this 24 hour look at climate change around the world and I waited patiently as nothing was said about meat eating. I watched this whole speech (yeah, I had nothing to do that night, ok). In a weird way, Gore is a microcosm of the climate fight. This battle is being fought without all our possible weapons or information.
I will revisit this, because there is just so much within this story. But, I do hope you found this informative.
Thanks for checking it out,
James