The way forward
Regardng the question: "Is there anything we can do as individuals to consume in a sustainable way?", the answer is "Of course! Not only that, our food choice is the single most powerful choice we can make. More than anything else!" This is the way forward; change our eating habits will tread lighter on the environment, and will have an important social impact.
"Food" is the most powerful factor
In April 2008, the science magazine "Environmental Science and Technology" published an article by two researchers from Carnegie Mellon University: "Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States" [1]. In this article, the scientists explain that studies on "sustainable consumption" offer consumers information concerning the food choices and its environmental/climate impact. Many of these studies report that the impact of individuals is due to three main factors: food, household energy use, and transportation. Of these three factors, the "food" factor, i.e. what each of us chooses to eat, is the most powerful, because:
1. It is the choice that has the greatest impact in terms of sheer quantity.
2. It has the greatest level of personal choice, because it does not depend on regulations, availability of mass transit or alternative energy sources, etc. The individual consumer has complete power of choice on what to eat.
3. It is something that can be applied now, not in the medium or long term, as may be other alternatives that require changes in infrastructures, in the goods available, in the technology used.
100% plant-based diet vs omnivorous diet: 8 to 1
In August 2008, the German Consumers Association "Foodwatch", published a report on the impact of agriculture and livestock farming on the greenhouse effect [2]. This study was conducted by the German Institute for Research on Ecological Economy (IOeW), and took into account the emission of CO2 resulting from the cultivation of livestock feed, from the use of pasture for their rearing and of the waste produced by the animals themselves (manure and intestinal gases).
In order to be easily understood by the public, the comparison is expressed in "Km equivalent", travelled by car (a BMW, to be precise) and it explains how many km by car is equivalent to 1 kg of meat, 1 kg of wheat, etc.
This means taking into account all the activities needed to grow the cattle feed (including the use of energy, water, chemicals, etc.), the management and transportation of the herds, the slaughterhouses, etc., the sum of greenhouse gas emissions due to these activities is equivalent to greenhouse gases emitted by a BMW over a certain distance. In this way, it is easy to understand just how polluting meat (and other animal products like milk and eggs) production is.
Calculating the total of "Km by BMW" equivalent to an omnivore, a vegetarian and a vegan diet in the course of one year, the results are: 100% Plant-Based Diet (vegan) 629 km; Vegetarian Diet 2427 km; Omnivorous Diet 4758 km. Therefore, as already known from other studies, the most eco-friendly diet is the 100% plant-based one. The lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet has an impact four times higher, the omnivorous one, eight times higher.
There are no "technological" solutions - reduce consumption is the only way
Despite the fact that these results are now disclosed quite often on newspapers and magazines, people seem to expect that there is some sort of technology that will solve the problem and allow them to retain their eating habits. But it does not exist and it will never exist, because the problem is inherent in the process of transformation from vegetable to animal, something that causes a major waste, as explained in the Panel devoted to the environmental impact.
The only real solution is in a drastic decrease (or total cessation) in the consumption of meat, milk and dairy products, and eggs, all of which involves the polluting process of livestock rearing.
Pleas from scientists
Here is a very brief list of articles by scientists that invite us to reduce the consumption of animal foods, in order to drastically decrease our impact on the environment. This is in addition to the fore mentioned "Foodwatch" report, that explicitly calls for the same in its conclusions.
Less animal proteins for humanity
The transition to plant proteins would offer many benefits, particularly in the energy field.
The world needs a "protein transition". Without necessarily becoming all vegetarians, it is essential to change our eating habits to choose that of vegetable origin.
This is the conclusion of the PROFETAS report (Protein Foods, Environment, Technology And Society), funded by the Dutch Science Academy and conducted by researchers from Amsterdam University and other Dutch universities, conclusion set out in "Le Scienze" article of April 2006 [3].
Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health
In the issue of September 2007 of the international scientific magazine "The Lancet", the article "Food, Livestock farming, Energy, Climate change and Health" [4] shows how these aspects are related, and how a drastic reduction in meat consumption is so urgent.
The researchers, after examining the impact on the greenhouse effect of the production of animal-based foods, say that the only solution is the reduction of animal products consumed by the richest countries, while setting a threshold not to be exceeded by developing countries, so that all countries converge towards the same level of consumption, much lower than the current one of the rich countries: No more than 90 grams of meat per day per capita (while currently it is of 101 grams on a global average, of which 47 grams in developing countries and 224 grams in industrialized countries).
In order to reach 90 grams in the industrialized countries, it is necessary to cut meat consumption by 60%. The scientists' conclusion is that the climate change problem requires immediate decisive respons. To the objection that because people love to eat meat, therefore the call to reduce meat consumption may not work, one must respond that people's food preferences is nothing compared to the much more serious problem of the survival of our very planet.
In wealthy countries, particularly in the United Kingdom, the most informed people are already choosing to reduce consumption of animal-derived foods, apparently to prevent the risk of cardiovascular diseases. In order to help people making this choice, it would be useful to eliminate governmental subsidies to cultivate livestock feed (wheat and soybeans) and subsidies to livestock farming; so the final price to the consumer would be higher, reflecting the real costs of this resource intensive endeavor. This would also help divert the crops to poor countries, for direct human consumption, reducing the "competition" between the cultivations of food for animals and humans.
Researchers conclude that the proposal would lead to many positive side-effects: a healthier diet, better air quality, greater water availability, a rationalization in the use of energy and in the production of food.
"Don't eat meat, ride a bike, and be a frugal shopper" - that's how you can help brake global warming.
These are the words of Rajendra Pachauri, Nobel Prize and Director of IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, spoken on the 15th of January 2008 during a Press Conference in Paris.
The dossier issued in 2007 by the IPCC highlighted "the importance of lifestyle changes" in order to combat global warming. The Director of IPCC, consistently a vegetarian himself, also said: "This is something that the IPCC was afraid to say earlier, but now we have said it."
And he continues, asking: "Please eat less meat - meat is a very carbon intensive commodity," and stressing that high consumption of meat is harmful for one's health.
References
[1] Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews, Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., 16 Apr 2008
[2] Foodwatch, Klimaretter Bio?, 25 Aug 2008
[3] Meno proteine animali per l'umanità, Le Scienze, 11 aprile 2006
[4] Anthony J McMichael, John W Powles, Colin D Butler, Ricardo Uauy, Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health, The Lancet, September 13, 2007