Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

How Diet and Climate Change Are Intrinsically Linked

Climate
How Diet and Climate Change Are Intrinsically Linked

The news is enough to make climate campaigners choke on their high-fibre breakfast cereal: If Americans adopted the dietary guidelines suggested by their own Department of Agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) would actually go up by 12 percent.

Direct emissions from agriculture make up between 10 percent and 12 percent of overall greenhouse gas emissions. If you throw in factors such as fertilizer and chemical production, fuel use and agricultural land-use change, the proportion rises—along with the uncertainty—to between 17 percent and 32 percent.

And even if Americans did what dietary campaigners urge and restricted themselves to a healthier 2000 calories a day, GHGs would not fall significantly.

Martin Heller and Gregory Keoleian, scientists at the University of Michigan’s Centre for Sustainable Systems, publish these findings in the Journal of Industrial Ecology.

And their conclusion  is liable to prove controversial, if only because other agriculturalists and economists have already argued that changes in human diet and more intelligent ways of promoting agriculture could simultaneously deliver better nutrition, greater food security and less damage to global climate.

Contentious conclusions

Cynics will remind each other that all scientific conclusions about diet, health, environment and nutrition tend to become contentious shortly after publication.

Others are likely to agree with Paul Palmer, of the University of Edinburgh, and Matthew Smith, of the University of Cambridge, who argue in Nature journal that it makes no sense to speculate on climate change without considering how people will respond to that change.

“Omitting human behavior is like designing a bridge without accounting for traffic,” they say.

Social commentators will also point out that in a society in which one-third of all Americans are classed as clinically obese and another third are overweight—and in which, paradoxically, 49 million are also “food insecure” or just plain hungry—there might be something irrelevant about the U.S. government’s dietary guidelines.

But the study by Heller and Keoleian, at bottom, simply addresses the problems associated with bureaucratic advice on subjects as personal as breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Direct emissions from agriculture make up between 10 percent and 12 percent of overall greenhouse gas emissions. If you throw in factors such as fertilizer and chemical production, fuel use and agricultural land-use change, the proportion rises—along with the uncertainty—to between 17 percent and 32 percent.

Researchers may enhance yields and farmers may use resources more efficiently, but populations will increase—and so will demand for meat and dairy products.

So the two scientists looked at greenhouse gas emissions associated with 100 foods. They considered the losses and waste in the food business: around a third of all food globally is lost or thrown away, and emissions from wasted food in the U.S. add up to the equivalent of an extra 33 million cars on American roads.

Costs and losses

They added into the mix the potential effects of social change—looking at studies from Germany and Switzerland, at EU targets, and at calculations of the demand for water and fertilizer in Asia and Africa—to get a surer picture of the costs and losses and emissions associated with agriculture.

They then examined the particular case of the U.S., where, they say, “repeated assessments find that Americans do not meet the federal dietary recommendations.”

Those guidelines recommend that Americans eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fat-free and low-fat dairy products, and seafood, and also consume less salt, saturated fat, trans fats, cholesterol, added sugar and refined grains.

Their calculation is that even if U.S. citizens consumed less beef and thus reduced greenhouse gas emissions—beef makes up 4 percent by weight of available food, but 36 percent of emissions—the increased use of dairy products would have the opposite effect.

If Americans followed the recommendations and continued to consume the same number of calories on average, greenhouse gas emissions would rise by 12 percent. If the nation reduced its intake to 2000 calories a day on average, the reduction would be only 1 percent.

“These findings emphasize the need to consider environmental costs in formulating recommended food patterns,” Heller and Keoleian conclude.

YOU ALSO MIGHT LIKE

Scientists Say Greenhouse Gas Emissions Continue to Wreak Havoc on Climate

Texas Official Cries: ‘Keep Meatless Mondays Out of Schools’

School Garden Program Teaches Kids to Eat and Grow Healthy Food

A grizzly bear killed an outdoor guide in a rare attack near Yellowstone Park. William Campbell / Corbis / Getty Images

A backcountry guide has died after being mauled by a grizzly bear near Yellowstone National Park.

Read More Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) re-introduces the Green New Deal in Washington, D.C. on April 20, 2021. Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images

By Brett Wilkins

In the latest of a flurry of proposed Green New Deal legislation, Reps. Cori Bush and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday introduced the Green New Deal for Cities Act of 2021, a $1 trillion plan to "tackle the environmental injustices that are making us and our children sick, costing us our homes, and destroying our planet."

Read More Show Less
Trending
Offshore oil and gas drillers have left more than 18,000 miles of pipelines at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Drew Angerer / Getty Images

Offshore oil and gas drillers have discarded and abandoned more than 18,000 miles of pipelines on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico since the 1960s, a report from the Government Accountability Office says.

Read More Show Less
Concerns over drinking polluted water top a recent Gallup poll on environmental threats. sonsam / Getty Images

Americans are most worried about water quality compared to other environmental issues, a new Gallup survey finds.

Read More Show Less
The black cherries of Coffea stenophylla. E. Couturon / IRD, Author provided

By Aaron P Davis

The world loves coffee. More precisely, it loves arabica coffee. From the smell of its freshly ground beans through to the very last sip, arabica is a sensory delight.

Robusta, the other mainstream coffee crop species, is almost as widely traded as arabica, but it falls short on flavor. Robusta is mainly used for instant coffee and blends, while arabica is the preserve of discerning baristas and expensive espressos.

Read More Show Less