Last week Paul McCartney launched Meat-Free Mondays, a UK-based initiative to combat climate change through diet. Supported by a glamorous cast of celebrities including Yoko Ono, Chris Martin, Richard Branson and Ricky Gervais, the goal of the campaign is to persuade people to go vegetarian one day a week to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the world's livestock.

Given the tendency of certain vegan/animal rights groups to co-opt almost any angle or celebrity it can to discourage people from eating meat, it’s not surprising that Meat-Free Mondays is already generating considerable backlash, not only from obvious sources such as the National Farmers Union, but even from vegetarian journalist Hadley Freeman, who recently wrote in the Guardian that “the whole shebang has taken on the sweaty sheen of bossiness and moral superiority. It makes me want to stuff a fistful of veal in their gobs.”

I have to admit that I can sort of see where Hadley is coming from; there is something inherently suspect about activists (especially celebrities) who are already vegetarian using climate change as the newest platform for their cause. First it was animal welfare, then health, then world hunger, now climate change. I mean do they really expect us to believe that eating vegetarian or vegan just happens to benefit what many are calling the defining issue of our generation?

Unfortunately for die-hard carnivores, the answer appears to be a resounding yes. Not only does eating lower on the food chain reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it may well be the single most effective step you can take to reduce your carbon footprint.

Before I get into the science behind this statement, let’s back up for a second and ask ourselves why it took a mishmash of celebrities (none of whom have a background in science) to get this issue into the public eye. Why don’t the same science, government and environmental organizations who admonish us to drive less and ‘flick off’ our lights also encourage us to eat less meat, if it’s such a big factor?

The answer to that question is, I believe, threefold. First of all, food choices are a very personal, and hence, controversial, subject. For many people, asking them to eat less of a certain food is like asking them to change their identity. Despite what fast food drive-thrus and microwave dinners might lead you to believe, eating is a very emotional act, our choice of foods often reflecting our psychological state, values and upbringing. For these and other reasons, most people hate being told what to eat, and hold fast to their right to choose even if disease and death are the consequences.

The second reason climate protection advocates have shied away from this issue is because of the sheer power of the vested interests who profit from the status quo. Much like the way tobacco companies fought tooth and nail to prevent the public from learning the dark truth about cigarettes, the animal foods industry is also engaged in a fierce battle to prevent anyone from ‘disparaging’ their products. Challenges to the integrity, value or safety of their goods are often met full force with PR offensives, litigation and/or the withdrawal of funding.

The third and perhaps least obvious reason why diet has dodged public recognition as a climate change priority is because many of the researchers and advocates themselves have yet to change the way they eat in response to the data, often for the same reasons listed above under reason number one. And because most of them are not hypocrites, they simply don’t feel ethical about promoting lifestyle changes they have yet to make.
 
So now that we have a better understanding of how such an important subject might have found its way to our awareness only through the likes of vegetarian celebrities, let’s get back to the science.

According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), meat production accounts for 18% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, 5% higher than the global transport sector (13%). This figure includes gases emitted at every stage of the meat production cycle - clearing forested land for feed crop production and grazing, producing and transporting fertilizer, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles and livestock trucks, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep. As food production goes, meat is by far the most energy, land and water intensive, primarily because of the inherent inefficiency of converting wheat, corn and soy into edible flesh, a process which can require up to 16 kilograms of grain and 5000 litres of water for each kilogram of beef.

Viewed this way - with what we might call full cost accounting - transportation of the final food product is only a small percentage of its total carbon tally. So much so, in fact, that eating locally produced animal foods is actually less climate-friendly than eating imported fruits and vegetables.

If you had to reread that last sentence, you’re not alone. The diet most people think of as good for the environment is a local one based on seasonal produce and locally produced meat, dairy and egg products. As it turns out, they’re only half right, as foregoing animal foods just one day a week will actually save more greenhouse gas emissions than eating a completely local omnivorous diet all year round.

Given this striking discrepancy, it’s little wonder that Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, states that “in terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, [eating less meat] clearly is the most attractive opportunity. Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there.”

Which brings us back to Meat-Free Mondays and leaves me looking forward to the day when the world is more interested in the diet of the world’s leading climate scientist (Dr. Pachauri is a vegetarian) than it is with that of a former Beatle.

References:
The Independent: McCartney urges 'meat-free days' to tackle climate change
BBC: Shun meat, says UN climate chief
New Scientist: Food miles don't feed climate change - meat does 
Guardian: UN says eat less meat to curb global warming 
Canada.com:  Hamburgers are the Hummers of food in global warming: scientists
New Scientist: Eating less meat could cut climate costs
Guardian: Hospitals will take meat off menus in bid to cut carbon