Factory farmed meat is the problem; both because it downgrades the food value of the food we force upon them, and also because it makes them sick (giving them indigestion) and because of the large amount of fuel and water we then have to use to transport and process it.

Cows that eat grass for their whole lives turn something we cannot eat into something we can; and they do not add any carbon at all — they fart less and it comes from the grass that just got it from the atmosphere and the ground, anyway.  If they are locally raised and processed, then this adds very little carbon to the air.

As I said, the chemical fertilizer and pesticides we use on factory *plant* farms contribute about 25% of the overall GHG.  So, this needs to change, too!  By then feeding 1/3rd of this to animals, we are adding insult to injury.

To sum up: it is factory farming AND the immense amount of fossil fuels we burn (for transportation and electricity) that are the majority of human-caused GHG.  The rest is largely deforestation.

Local farming (both plants and animals) are NOT contributing to GHG.  And guess what? Since both animals and plants are required in the complete cycle of life, we actually need to have both on our local farms — they each enhance the other; as Wendell Berry points out.

Many people like meat, and therefore we will “bring” a lot more people onboard.  Meat is a very efficient way to get a part of the nutrition we need.  I am in complete agreement with you that we should NOT eat a LOT of meat, but that doesn’t mean that we have to eliminate it from our diet.

We are omnivores, after all.

Neil

If we cut the amount per person and modify our production systems we could get this portion of the climate change drivers to an acceptable level.

Neil

The fertilizer we use now comes largely from natural gas (!) and it is water soluble, so it runs off in the very first rain, and pollutes the ground water and when it makes it into the local bodies of water, it causes algae bloom, and then the oxygen level spike killing most things.  When it makes it to the ocean, it causes dead zones.

In the end, the nitrogen combines with oxygen to become nitrous oxide, which is — you guessed it: a powerful greenhouse gas!  This is the source for about 25% (or more) of the human caused greenhouse gasses!

Then we transport our food great distances, which adds even more GHG.

When we feed soybeans and corn, etc. to animals we lose a huge percentage of the calories and the proteins.

All along this process, we use way too much water, which we are pumping up from very deep wells and we are quickly depleting the aquifers.  The power used to pump and process the water adds more GHG to our shared atmosphere.

Locally grown meat that is fed properly i.e. cows that eat fresh grass and true free-range chickens and pigs — just like all farms *used* to be and how people like the Amish still do — is the perfect solution.  As Wendell Berry said:

“Once plants and animals were
raised together on the same farm – which therefore neither produced
unmanageable surpluses of manure, to be wasted and to pollute the
water supply, nor depended on such quantities of commercial
fertilizer. The genius of America farm experts is very well
demonstrated here: they can take a solution and divide it neatly into
two problems.”

We have to solve both our addiction to fossil fuels and how we grow our food, if we expect to survive.

Neil

That locally-produced, free-range, organic hamburger might not be as green as you think. An analysis of the environmental toll of food production concludes that transportation is a mere drop in the carbon bucket. Foods such as beef and dairy make a far deeper impression on a consumer’s carbon footprint. “If you have a certain type of diet that’s indicative of the American average, you’re not going to do that much for climate while eating locally…
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn13741-food-miles-dont-feed-climate-change–meat-does.html

It is factory farming that is the problem, and the immense distance we can ship food (for too little cost) — the average food item travels 1,400-1500 miles to get to your plate.  We use way too much water, as well.  We farm in the frickin’ desert, fer cryin’ out loud!

Slow food, in-season food, local food, organic food (no chemicals at all), and we’d all be a lot healthier and the world would be in a better state, too.  A lot more people would be working very productively, and we’d all be happier.  We need more CSA’s, more coops, more farms that grow everything within a couple of hours drive of where it is eaten.

Neil

but we need a good wake-up call and kick in the ass sometimes. i certainly wouldn’t be in this job without it, and i think most wouldn’t.

Same here.

“The livestock sector emerges as one of the top contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.” UN Food and Agricultural Organization’s report “Livestock’s Long Shadow”

“If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains… the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund

Why would someone choose to be vegan? To slow global warming for one! Here are two uplifting videos to help everyone understand why so many people are making this life affirming choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKr4HZ7ukSE and http://www.veganvideo.org

Geoengineering solutions to delay the onset of the worst effects of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere will probably as be necessary as the 2 degrees Celcius limit looks too high to avoid them. The appropriate place for them is with the peer-reviewed scientists.

Geoengineering is also more speculative and could have other negative impacts on the environment. We need to guard against the fossil fuel burning lobby using it to create doubt about the measures we should be taking.

I have a B.A. in environmental studies and sociology (from New College of Florida, the Honors College of Florida) and a Master’s in city and regional planning (from UNC-Chapel Hill).

Good guess, just a sociology major.  Hey buddy, before you spout your genocidal nonsense in public why don’t you learn something first.
Stan Lippmann, Ph.D. (Physics) J.D.

We simply have to take this head on.  We have to change the way we are burning through fossil fuels as fast as we can…

Neil

Neil