STWR - Share The World's Resources

Whenever someone has dared challenged the Western lifestyle to address global warming, there has been a quick and sharp retaliation - and R K Pachauri's citing of the meat problem is no exception, writes Devinder Sharma.

12th September 08 - Devinder Sharma ~ STWR

Science, economics and politics have a strong correlation – but whether it’s the continuing debate on international trade or the growing heat on global warming, it is invariably politics that determines the final agenda.

So when R K Pachauri, chief of the Nobel prize-winning UN Climate Change panel, appealed for a days abstinence from eating meat during one week, it was expected to stir a hornet’s nest - or should I say, it was expected to literally shake up the barn. And so it did. Beef farmers in the United States and Europe have already launched a stinging attack. In the days to come, I wouldn’t be surprised if the debate gets even murkier with cow dung proverbially splashed all around.

I am not sure whether Dr Pachauri anticipated the reaction, but the fact remains that whenever someone has dared to challenge the Western lifestyle there has been a quick and sharp retaliation. It’s no wonder that, in the entire debate on climate change, the main issue tossed around is on how global warming will bring massive destruction to the developing world – more floods, more droughts, and more freak storms in a devastating fury.  You don't hear about what it entails for the rich and industrialised countries.

The underlying message is loud and clear: developing countries must protect and help safeguard the environment. Since the poor are going to be the worst sufferers, they must learn to alter their behaviour. Which makes me wonder: when were the developing countries not suffering from incessant rains, floods and drought? Why has the world suddenly become so benevolent towards the poor? I will revert to the politics behind the climate change debate later, but first let us take a look at the bovine controversy.

The bovine controversy

Dr Pachauri quotes the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) to say that meat production accounts for nearly 18 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, expected to double by the year 2050. The UK National Beef Association has debunked this analysis, asserting that the 18 per cent figure has since been discredited. The analysis, it says, was based on the clearing of the Amazon forests for rearing cattle which took the peak year figure of 26,000 sq kms for rainforests cleared in 2004.

Whether the greenhouse gas emissions are 18 percent or 15 percent or less, the fact remains that about 70 percent of the food grains produced in America are fed to cows and pigs for meat purposes. No wonder that the meat industry proliferates in the US, and to a larger extent in the other 30 rich and industrialised countries forming the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). To ensure that animals grow faster, cows and pigs are routinely fed with foodgrains and other nutrient feeds and not allowed to graze. In fact, the belief is that allowing cattle to graze saps their energy levels, leading meat factories to conserve an animal’s energy by keeping them confined to small enclosures.

An average American consumes about 125 kg of meat, including 46 kg of poultry meat. While the Indians are still lagging behind, the Chinese are fast catching up with the American lifestyle. The Chinese consume about 70 kg of meat on average each year, inclusive of 8.7 kg of poultry meat. The Indian average is around 3.5 kg of meat, much of it (2.1 kg) coming from poultry. If you put all this together, the Chinese are the biggest meat eaters, and for obvious reasons - devouring close to 100 million tonnes every year. America is not far behind, consuming about 35 million tonnes of meat in a year. India devours far less, with not more than 3 million tonnes of annual meat consumption.

The methane gas released by meat is considered to be 23 times more potent as a climate change agent than carbon dioxide. Multiply this by the 55,000 million cattle that are reared the world over for meat consumption, and you have a fair idea of how much additional heat is being generated. Imagine if China and America alone were to reduce its meat consumption by just ten percent every year – would the world’s environment not become much cleaner and cooler?

Blaming the Asian rice paddies

Which brings me to another aspect of the global warming debate. The cultivation of rice is also blamed for releasing methane into the environment. With 97 percent of the world’s rice grown in Asia, the Asian rice paddies are being accused of adding to global warming and also sucking the land dry. Since 5,000 litres of water is required to produce one kilo of rice, Asian farmers are being blamed for the falling groundwater levels. In the recent past, there have been suggestions to reduce rice plantings in order to not only conserve water, but also to save the world from warming up.  

Rice cultivation is linked to billions of livelihoods, and rice also happens to be the major staple food for the world. On the other hand, livestock farming for meat consumption is certainly not something that cannot be done away with. After all, meat is not a staple food, and it is also an inefficient way of converting protein from foodgrains. In any case, as much as 16 kg of grain is required to produce one kilo of beef.

Still more devastating is the water requirement for meat consumption. Hold your breath: it requires 70,000 litres of water to produce one kilo of beef. Isn’t it ironical that while the world blames small farmers in Asia for sucking the planet dry, no one seems to be perturbed at the way meat factories are guzzling water. Why blame the Asian paddies, and not beef production? You guessed right - because it affects the Western lifestyle.

Charity, they say, begins at home. It’s high time that the moral guardians of the world begin to look inwards, and to see what changes they need to make so that the world becomes a safer and a cooler place for everyone. As now widely accepted, the Occidental way of life leaves a devastating ecological footprint on the planet, and without a drastic change in Western lifestyles the world will continue to warm up.

It is no use blaming the poor when the fault lies with the rich and beautiful. Dr Pachauri’s suggestion must therefore be followed in true letter and spirit.

Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst. He is a regular contributor to STWR. 

STWR articles by Devinder Sharma

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment