Did you know that all that juicy steak on your plate arrives «cost» in the same global warming emissions and driving distance 30 km; that produce just a kilo of veal, the atmosphere is charged with 36.4 pounds of carbon dioxide and spent energy equal to that needed to remain lit a lamp of 100 watts for 20 days; that eventually our perseverance in a purely kreofagiki diet is energy, and hence environmental impact much more seriously than perhaps we thought? s the solution is not to start a hunger strike or suffer guilt for each mouthful of tender fillet that put in our mouths. We need to pull the meat from our lives. But to cut.
Since 2050 global meat consumption will climb to 465 million tonnes from 230 million estimated for 2000 was not accidental, the recent intervention of Dr Ratzentra Patsaouri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which urged citizens to exclude even one day a week meat from the dish in order to contribute to the fight against climate change.
Because red meat is harmful to the planet
When speaking of the energy footprint of our diets, we refer to meat, we mean mainly the red and particularly the beef / veal. This is because:
1. The cow stomach! Because of fermentation in the digestive system of cows, like all ruminants, produces methane, a gas 23 times more harmful than carbon dioxide with respect to global warming. The composition of the feed affects both the way in this broken intestines of ruminant animals and therefore the quantity of methane, but catalytic role played by the same animal. Typically, a cow can produce from 100 to 200 liters of methane daily, while only 30 sheep.
2. Chemical fertilizers to produce feed and cattle manure are responsible for the release of significant quantities of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of its ability to bind heat and remains in the atmosphere on average for 114 years. Livestock accounts for 65% of anthropogenos produced nitrous oxide, mostly from manure.
3. Livestock production consumes large quantities of fresh water, which irrigated the forage. Estimated that each liter of cow's milk accounted 990 liters of water.
4. The more technologically advanced is the rural area in which livestock contributes more so because of infrastructure and energy equipment used in climate change. The problem does not arise from direct consumption of energy for use by farm machinery and indirect, for the production of feed, fertilizer, seeds and construction of infrastructure. Thus, on average for a liter of cow's milk required 250 grams of oil equivalent, while a kilo of beef in 1550 grams of oil equivalent, oil equivalent, where 1 corresponds to 0.75 liters of gasoline.
«Have the Mediterranean diet, not to ignore»
Before 2 years Gkinton Esel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors of the University of Chicago, sought to compare two equal but different caloric content in raw materials, meals, in drawing up scientific research on whether the dietary habits of Americans are the greenhouse effect.
They found that the veal steak responsible for 24 times more emissions than a dish with vegetables cooked in light gouok, that is 2400% more harmful for the planet. «More concrete and simple, if the average American consumer became vegetarian meat will avoid the atmosphere of 1 ½ tonne of CO2 per year», explains Mr Esel in ECON. «This does not mean that tomorrow we must stop eating meat. It means that the fewer animal products we consume, the more benefits the planet. Alternatives exist. For example, in Greece you have the chance to know better than anyone the benefits of the Mediterranean diet. Why not benefit from the variety of legumes, vegetables and fruits that abound in your place; ».
In Great Britain some supermarkets already operate, putting special markings on the labels of food products, be classified according to their energy footprint. A similar effort is also known by the U.S. chain restaurant, which also recently launched its website and running the calculation of the energy footprint of all the offered menu. «Any initiative that is moving in this direction is interesting as a concept, but implementation is not as easy as it may seem. Why, for example, not enough to write on the label that the food one traveled 100 kilometers until it reaches the plate. What lies here is the means by which transferred: truck, ship, train or airplane. But in substance the most catalytic factor in the calculation of pollutants under the responsibility of the food is not the distance but spent the methods by which it was produced. And for that reason is the livestock sector which should turn our attention », says Mr. Esel.
In the «dirty» secrets hidden in the other a delicious piece of meat but also included another important parameter. This is the place of production, which is associated with two very useful information closely related to the rational or non-use of natural resources: the climatic conditions in farm animals and the technological equipment available to the farmer. «The technologically advanced areas contribute more to climate change from the most underdeveloped because of more intensive methods used», says Mr. Esel. «Similarly, the calculation of pollutants plays a key role in longitude and latitude location of the farm. Why a dairy cow that is growing in Saudi Arabia is far more energy than an animal of southern Europe. Can not survive in the farm if the air conditioning does not work 24 hours in 24 hours ».
Organic better!
Next time, however, will produce a list of shopping week is good to know that the energy footprint of organic beef is much less than conventional. Therefore, let us prefer. «This is why organic farming works as a closed system: the animal manure used as fertilizer in fields that produce their food, and therefore does not include chemical fertilizers, whose production requires high energy and emits large quantities of pollutants», explains Mr Esel.
«We have to clarify that I refer mainly to organic small-scale farms, which I imagine there are similar and Greece. Because the larger, like those found in the U.S. West Coast, things change a little. Usually there output in the manure unit is not sufficient, hence must be transported from other areas. But because the weight is not entirely negligible, and issues involved here on the transport and energy derived from it. Therefore we exactly where we started from there. As responsible consumers should demand to inspect the conditions under which it is produced our food. Otherwise it's like to forget how much fuel «burn» cars of us ».
What can we do
Gradually reduce the consumption of red meat.
We have in our daily diet of legumes, fish, seafood. Discover (again) the beneficial properties of Mediterranean diet.
We prefer organic versus conventional meat.
Cook the quantities needed to meet our needs.
We throw food away.
Hamburger 1 = 1 kg CO2
• livestock comes from 18% of emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities - is more than the amount of gas corresponding to transport!
• In particular, livestock emits 9% of CO2, 35% -40% methane and 65% nitrous oxide.
• 60% increase in methane emissions from livestock in 2030 as foreseen by the UN.
• 2,4 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted each year as a result of deforestation to create pastures and grassland.
• In total 1.5 billion cattle worldwide.
• 30% of the earth's surface not covered by ice directly or indirectly involved in the production of meat.
• 1 kilogram of CO2 emitted to produce 1 hamburger.
• 56 billion animals raised and slaughtered annually for human consumption, according to statistics of the FAO. Calculated that number will double by 2050.
• 230 pounds of meat is taken from an average cow.
No comments:
Post a Comment