Did the IPCC Say We Must Quit Eating Meat?

The climate activists are widely reporting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has  declared that we all have to be vegetarians.  But is that true?

 

As quoted below, IPCC’s 107 climate-change gurus recently said, “Balanced diets, featuring plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low-GHG emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health.”

 

Translate the jargon into plain English and the IPCC is pretty much saying what holistic ranchers have been espousing for decades:  Meat is not a problem for the health of people or the environment, but industrialized confined production systems such as feedlots and fish farms can be. Instead of vilifying ranchers, the world would be better served by encouraging them to use rotational grazing, which can actually improve range conditions thereby helping combat climate change, to produce grass-fed meat. 

 

NOTE: this article was originally published to OnPasture.com on August 12, 2019. It was written by Kathy Voth.

Let’s start with this:

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that was released on August 8 does not say we should quit eating meat and become vegetarians.

Here’s what it does say:

“Balanced diets, featuring plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low-GHG emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health (high confidence*). ”

– B6.2 of the Summary for Policy Makers

The scientists who worked on the report were tasked with taking a global look at how the ways we use our land contributes to climate change, and how climate change affects our land. Their primary conclusion can be summed up in one of the graphics from their presentation of the report in Geneva.

As with any health check up, there’s some bad news and some good news. The bad news, in this case, is that we have some work to do. The good news is that the report points out plenty of things we can do globally to make a difference. Here’s an example:

“Practices that contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation in cropland include increasing soil organic matter, erosion control, improved fertiliser management, improved crop management, for example, paddy rice management, and use of varieties and genetic improvements for heat and drought tolerance. For livestock, options include better grazing land management, improved manure management, higher-quality feed, and use of breeds and genetic improvement. Different farming and pastoral systems can achieve reductions in the emissions intensity of livestock products. Depending on the farming and pastoral systems and level of development, reductions in the emissions intensity of livestock products may lead to absolute reductions in GHG emissions (medium confidence*). Many livestock related options can enhance the adaptive capacity of rural communities, in particular, of smallholders and pastoralists. Significant synergies exist between adaptation and mitigation, for example through sustainable land management approaches (high confidence*). {4.8, 5.3.3, 5.5.1, 5.6}

– B6.1 of the Summary for Policy Makers

 

If you’re saying to yourself, “But I’m already working on all of this!” you’re right. And that’s another part of the good news. Here in the United States we’ve created what may be the most efficient agricultural system around. In fact, a recent study shows that U.S. beef production is not a significant contributor to climate change. What’s made that possible are decades of livestock and plant genetics that help animals to gain more on less feed, and give us high quality forages that reduce methane output and contribute to faster animal growth.

But that’s not the story in all parts of the world. While we continue our own, very important work on soil health, erosion prevention, keeping the ground covered with good plants, and reducing our carbon footprint, perhaps we can also figure out ways to learn from and share what we’ve learned with our fellow farmers and ranchers in other countries. As an example of this, check out this week’s article on the work that Dr. Ray Weil and Dr. Kate Tully are doing with farmers in Ethiopia.

Finally, here’s something I do every time I read something that makes me say, “OMG!” or “People couldn’t possibly be THAT stupid!!” I head straight to the source. (Don’t go to Facebook, where people are freaking out just as much as you are. Don’t go to your favorite news channel either. Get as close as you can to the original.) In this case, I headed straight to the IPCC report site and did some quick reading. Both the press release and a quick scan of the summary were very reassuring.

I hope this helps. And I hope you’ll head over to read more of the report. I’ll also be reading more and sharing what I learn as I can.

Thanks for reading!

Kathy

* In IPCC reports, confidence is expressed qualitatively and tells us how certain we are that scientific findings are valid. The level of confidence is determined by the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence. Here’s a breakdown of Confidence Terminology: