Cross-posted from EnviroWonk

"Mother Nature's Son," Sir Paul McCartney, recently expressed his disappointment with environmental NGOs for not putting greater emphasis on reducing meat consumption -- along with driving less and replacing standard light bulbs with CFLs -- as ways to fight climate change.

Paul's been a vegetarian and animal-rights activist since he and his family realized the cute sheep in the meadow in their backyard were the lamb chops on their plates (You may remember his guest appearance, with the late Linda McCartney, on one of the best Simpsons episodes of all time, "Lisa The Vegetarian." But we digress.)

Sir Paul said he's surprised that environmental groups rarely list vegetarianism as a top priority, given the huge swaths of land and billions of gallons of water used by the meat industry.

McCartney's recent pleas make more sense than ever, especially given the soaring food around the world. Most of the blame has been put on biofuels, as more farmers are growing corn for ethanol since it's so lucrative, therefore reducing the supply of other important staples. Plus, the rising cost of energy to transport food, and the reduced crop harvests in places like Australia have all combined to create a perfect storm for rising food prices.

But what many view as an equally important factor has been left out of the discussion: more people are eating more meat. For every ton of food that goes to fill the gas tank, more than 3/4 of a ton of grain go to feed livestock. Has this inspired a single politician to suggest people cut back on their burgers?

Nope. Look at how John Edwards was pilloried for suggesting American's give up their SUVs. Americans don't deal well when you ask them to make due with less, so it looks like for now the push to reduce meat consumption will have to come from aging rockers with an album to sell, rather than policy makers. Although, Dennis "The most powerful vegan in Congress" Kucinich, may bring it up next time he runs for the presidency.

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Molly Hamilton, April 23, 2008

If people would eat locally raised, grass fed beef, it would basically eliminate the problems mentioned here. Any locally (semi-sustainably) raised meat will contribute less to climate change.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by John Giezentanner, April 25, 2008

...But it would still require huge amounts of land and water, plus sacrifices of wildlife in order to ensure the cows' supply of grass and their safety, and the cows' own methane output wouldn't change. Locally raised, grass fed cows may be a step in the right direction, but not as much as giving up beef altogether.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment