The Global Sociology Blog

This one is going to make my animal rights friends (somewhat) happy):

UN says eat less meat to curb global warming | Environment | The Observer via kwout

It is common sense, of course. I have posted on this topic before. It is well known that producing meat involves a heavy carbon footprint. (And by the way, I posted the photo because I find it particularly disgusting… seriously, who wants to eat THAT?)

What is more interesting here is the source of the recommendations: not environmental activists, not animal rights activists, but the very-respectable, Nobel Prize winning  UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report makes a clear connection not between over-consumption of meat in rich countries and health but between meat over-consumption in rich countries and environmental depletion, sustainability and habitat destruction:

"The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century.

‘In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,’ said Pachauri. ‘Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,’ said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian.

However, he also stressed other changes in lifestyle would help to combat climate change. ‘That’s what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy.’"

Expect some whining from the meat industry for being unfairly targeted… oh, wait… there it is:

"However, Chris Lamb, head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX, said the meat industry had been unfairly targeted and was working hard to find out which activities had the biggest environmental impact and reduce those. Some ideas were contradictory, he said – for example, one solution to emissions from livestock was to keep them indoors, but this would damage animal welfare. ‘Climate change is a very young science and our view is there are a lot of simplistic solutions being proposed,’ he said."

However, Mr Lamb (can’t make that up) makes a good point as well: if we agree that cows are a major producer of methane gas, then milk and dairy have to also be reduced from our diets. Although, I would argue that it’s not that hard and that, in rich countries, again, there are easy and tasty substitutes available.

The reason why I keep specifying between rich and poor countries is that we, in rich countries, have options when it comes to nutrition, although the healthy and sustainable options tend to be expensive but that would get us back to the question of agricultural subsidies. On the other hand, poor countries where large segments of the population are suffering from malnutrition, there should be no restriction or limitation on access to meat or dairy especially when these are core nutritional elements. But for us, especially here in the US, we should be the one drastically curbing our meat and dairy consumption as a matter of public policy (not that it’s going to happen though, it would have to come from the grassroot level).

But this is where persuading individuals and communities becomes key, something that the IPCC Chair seems to understand:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Shun meat, says UN climate chief via kwout

How such changes in lifestyle can be made though, is a different and thornier question. My commenter and friend and colleague VeganProf is currently working on the embedding of meat consumption with our cultural conceptions of masculinity (see how Sarah Palin’s hunting and meat-eating is supposed to make her tough and ready to take on the evil Russians who lurk near Alaska).

One of the most difficult tasks is that of disembedding these associated symbolic meaning: how can we separate gender socialization and nutritional practices? What are the values and institutions that support such symbolic (yet with very real practices) association? In other words, how can we contest what has been successfully decontested (masculinity and hunting and meat-eating are so deeply culturally embedded that these associations are not questions and deviations from the standard – real men eat meat, even better if they kill the animals themselves… more manly – is truly seen as gender deviance).

Now, if I could persuade VeganProf to post on this… even if just a short and sweet thing, or a series, for when she has time, something like that… (massive and totally unsubtle hinting)