Climate change is decisively here,
and even softer sceptics are now beginning
to agree about both its inevitability and
extent
but do we really need to quit beef to address it?
No I want roast beef you clod!
Hah ha ha ha
This week saw Goldsmiths College,
part of the University of London,
ban the sale of the meat on campus
to help tackle the climate crisis.
As a result beef products will no longer
be available on campus when the academic year
begins in September.
Alongside that there will be an additional
10p levy
added to bottled water and disposable plastic
cups
In order to discourage their use as the institution
seeks to phase out single-use plastics
and install more solar panels
in a quest to become carbon neutral by 2025.
But when it comes to beef
doesn’t this seem a little….excessive?!
Well it turns out not really.
Because at worst climate change poses
an existential threat to humanity.
The planet’s on fucking fire!
It’s widely acknowledged that warming
beyond two degrees could create a cascade
of feedbacks,
where two leads to three, three to four, four
to five and five to six.
That isn’t coming immediately
it’s not going to start next year.
But what we know for the rest of this century
is likely warming of around two degrees centigrade.
In reality that means declining crop yields,
vanishing glaciers - which presently provide
clean drinking water
and desertification from Lisbon to Los Angeles.
In this scenario the UN predicts as many as
200 million climate refugees,
with the rising populations of the global
south,
particularly in south Asia and sub-saharan
Africa,
incapable of being supported unless they move.
This is an actual crisis! Got it?
Yeah it’s really that bad.
Well does the prohibition of beef really make
a difference?
The answer - and this is coming from someone
who has little time for private virtue
when what is needed is historic collective
action
is decisively yes!
At present we are using 1.6 times our planet’s
biocapacity
imagine we were in an ecological overdraft
and spending far more than we are putting in.
Now while some people might blame overpopulation
for that,
an often racialised way of assessing the problem,
that’s deeply unhelpful.
Because if every human ate the average south
asian diet
we could easily sustain a planet of 10 billion,
but on the other hand if everyone instead
ate
the typical north American diet
that figure would be closer to 2.5 billion.
The reason?
The role of animal products.
So if everyone were to enjoy the same diet
as the average American does today,
consuming approximately 3,700 daily calories,
we would need the resources of an additional
five Earths.
Even if you wanted the United States
of today
to be a template of global development,
from the perspective of bio-capacity
that isn’t remotely possible.
And when you integrate reasonable forecasts
about the impact of climate change on agriculture
the picture gets even worse.
A 2009 report predicted that warming
of three degrees would mean a
50 per cent reduction in wheat yields
in South Asia between 2000 and 2050,
along with a 17 per cent reduction
in rice and six per cent in maize.
That’s in a region with three of the eight
most populous countries in the world
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
All of which are set to see their respective
populations rise further still.
That isn’t to say the comparatively wealthier
countries
of the Global North will remain unaffected,
however.
Within a low warming scenario,
forecasts suggest the US would see corn and
soy yields
fall by 30 and 46 per cent respectively.
Given the country is currently the world’s
leading exporter of grains, that would spell
disaster
not only at home but for the world market.
Even if other countries such as Russia and
Canada
stepped up to become agricultural powerhouses,
this might only serve to increase the possibility
of
resource conflicts with their more militarily
powerful neighbours.
So how can we possibly feed a world of 9.5
billion
30 years from now?
Part of the answer, particularly for the global
south,
is cellular agriculture - beef without cows,
lamb without sheep, foie gras without geese.
That would necessitate less land, labour and
water,
while creating a fraction of the CO2 and methane
emissions.
But while that technology is exciting
and a massive part of the solution it isn’t
yet here,
which means as many of us as possible
need to follow the example set by Goldsmiths.
That’s because compared to a plant-based
diet,
meat is energy intensive and highly inefficient
in converting solar energy to food.
A Bangladeshi family living off rice, beans,
vegetables and fruit
can subsist on an acre of land or less.
Meanwhile the average American,
who consumes 270 pounds of meat a year,
could require twenty times that.
If you examine the inputs necessary to produce
a pound of soy compared to animal protein,
the latter uses twelve times as much land,
thirteen times as much fossil fuels
and fifteen times as much water
and soy is a famously inefficient non-meat
product.
And it isn’t just the conversion of solar
energy
into kilocalories which is inefficient.
Nearly a third of the useable surface area
of the planet is given over to livestock either
directly or indirectly,
with animal feed accounting for the majority
of global crop production.
One study by Cornell University found that
while 302 million hectares
were given over to livestock in the United
States,
only 13 million hectares were allocated to
vegetables, rice, fruit, potatoes and beans.
What’s more, livestock farming alone contributes
to 14 per cent of all human caused greenhouse
gas emissions
and, according to a 2006 report by the UN,
generates more CO2 emissions than cars.
Meanwhile 69 per cent of the world’s freshwater
withdrawals are committed to agriculture,
most of which is in meat production,
with the average cow consuming
11,000 gallons of water a year.
That means the average pound of ground beef
requires 440 gallons of water.
And all in a world where millions of people
die every year from water-related disease.
Most remarkable of all is that after using
all this
water, energy, land and labour
not to mention the greenhouse gas emissions
created as a by-product we dispense with
as much as half of the animal’s carcass.
A heifer weighing a thousand pounds
will, on average, produce 610 pounds of ‘hanging
weight’,
with this falling to 430 pounds of retail
cuts after
the removal of bone and fat.
Once you factor in skin and hooves, two years
of digestive processes,
consciousness, respiration and just moving
around,
food from a living cow starts to look incredibly
wasteful
as a means of transforming solar energy into
beef and milk.
Does all that mean you should quit meat right
now
and never eat it again
(until that is, until we get cultured Kobe
steak?)
Probably - but you aren’t going to do that
right
now so let’s start slow.
Like those at Goldsmiths why not campaign
for your school,
university or workplace to go beef free
after all beef is by far the most ecologically
devastating meat.
And while you’re at it why not
be more mindful about reducing meat generally?
I’ve gone back to being a vegetarian this
year,
with the occasional lapse I must admit,
and while that certainly isn’t enough to
save the planet,
along with limiting personal flights it’s
a pretty decent start.
What’s more eliminating meat from your diet,
starting with beef,
reduces unnecessary suffering to your fellow
creatures,
who under capitalism are reduced to a lifeless
commodity
deprived of any dignity.
One day soon cellular agriculture,
Hopefully produced by a local worker owned enterprise,
will be providing you with ultra cheap lobster,
caviar and ribeye steak -
but until then do yourself,
the planet and the animals a favour
reach for the salad.
