Climatologist is wrong about meat.
Pastural Farming Climate Research- Members' newsletter
21 February 2011
Dr James Hansen, who is described as a top climatologist from the Goddard Institute has called for a reduction in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“We have to actually reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere; It’s already increased to about 385 parts per million. If we want to stop the warming and stop the melting of more ice, we are going to have to reduce the CO2 at least back to 350 ppm, and perhaps even somewhat lower.”
This is what he is asking people to do to achieve this;
“There are many things that people can do to reduce their carbon emissions, but changing your light bulb and many of the things are much less effective than changing your diet, because if you eat further down on the food chain rather than animals, which have produced many greenhouse gases, and used much energy in the process of growing that meat, you can actually make a bigger contribution in that way than just about anything. So, that, in terms of individual action, is perhaps the best thing you can do.”
Now I don’t know about the effect a CO2 concentration of 385ppm has on ice, I don’t think anyone knows that, not even Hansen. But even if he is right what he proposes people do is totally wrong and that would lead me to conclude that he is wrong about everything.
Firstly animal emissions of greenhouse gas have absolutely no impact on CO2 levels in the atmosphere. He uses the term greenhouse gases from animals, which can only be methane and nitrous oxide.
Well nitrous oxide is N2O. That is one nitrogen atom and two oxygen atoms; there are no carbon atoms in it so levels of CO2 will be unaffected no matter how much N2O is produced.
As for enteric methane, it is CH4 and yes the C will form CO2 but it was sourced from CO2 in the atmosphere so the level of CO2 will not change. Fossil sourced methane will eventually add to the store of CO2 because the methane will oxidise to CO2 and that C was sourced from under the ground. If the fossil source is from a steady state source the level of methane in the atmosphere will remain constant, as it does with steady state sources of enteric methane, but unlike enteric methane the new Carbon atom in the fossil methane will lead eventually to an increase in CO2.
Arguments about the different greenhouse effects of CH4 and CO2 and N2O are quite irrelevant here, Hansen is talking about reducing the concentration of CO2 and animal’s emissions have no effect on CO2 whatsoever. And you can take that to the bank. Hansen is wrong to say the best thing an individual can do is stop eating meat.
Animal production does use fossil fuel on the farm, in processing and in transport so eating meat will have an effect on CO2 but no more than any other food production.
Vegetarians seem to think that a field can be worked up, the crops planted, sprayed, weeded, harvested, transported etc without producing any CO2. (lack of iron in their blood probably)
Add soil carbon to the equation and vegetarianism looks pretty bad for the planet. There is four times the amount of carbon stored in the world’s soils than in the atmosphere. There is five times more carbon stored in the soil than in all the biomass in the entire world. When pasture is converted to forestry or crop production roughly half this soil carbon is released to the atmosphere. Huge amounts of stored carbon will be released to the atmosphere if people adopted Hansen’s advice. The planet will fry and the ice will melt so fast, we’ll be underwater in no time. (that is if you believe Hansen is right about global warming, but as I said he could not be more wrong about the effect eating meat has on CO2 levels so I personally would not believe a word he said about anything)
One has to wonder why Hansen makes these claims about meat; he must know the science does not support his claim. It is also a shame our meat industry is too impotent to challenge him. The one thing that makes me suspicious about his motivation is that rice production produces more methane than livestock. (it is just as harmless ) Those who call for people to stop eating meat, but who do not also call for them to stop eating rice show themselves for what they are, a fraud.
Or they could just be vegetarians themselves, just looking for an opportunity to promote their strange vegetarian beliefs. The Chairman of the IPCC , Rajendra Pacauri, could be in this category
