Cows are not to blame for climate change. It is easy to point out the windy biology of ruminants and mock their infinite ability to emit methane. It is comfortable to complain about livestock for its wild processes - everything in it is bad for the environment, from feed manufacturing to land use and water consumption. But that will not change reality. Yes, we must consume less meat if we want to solve the climate crisis, but also face the fact that greenhouse gases are the result of our decisions. The fault is not of the cows or of the pigs or of the hens, it is of the people, of their insatiable appetite for the meat and, for what says a recent study of a team of scientists from United Kingdom, Norway and Japan, published in the scientific magazine One Earth, of his love for alcohol, sweets and dining out. Yes, two keys to a good night of farra and one that is not a minor pleasure for the palate (unless your sweet taste buds have preserved their virginity).
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), livestock, especially industrial, is responsible for 14.5% of greenhouse gases. It pollutes more than all cars, trains, ships and airplanes, spends the same amount of water in a year as all Spanish families in 20 and their feed contributes to deforestation. It is normal for it to be on the target of conscientious citizens. But it's time to test the commitment: with the data from the new study in hand, it's time to turn off the beer tap and the wine bottle, leave the manolitos and the palmeritas for special occasions and decide when to go out for dinner ( and the glasses after) is an unnecessary whim - or, perhaps, to learn at once how to read a recipe and prepare delicacies at home.
The analysis that scientists have made of the consumption of 60,000 homes spread across 47 prefectures of Japan makes this clear: in this case, those with a higher carbon footprint are not distinguished so much by eating more meat than by consuming twice as many sugary products than those that have the least impact, because its members eat out twice more and because they drink more than triple the amount of alcohol. And now what do we do? Do we share a ribeye instead of ordering a drink? Do we hire a catering for dinner all at home? Don't even think about it, you just have to put things in their place.
How they fill the glass in the homes investigated does not matter as much as knowing that not all drinks have the same impact. A report from the 2008 New Belgium Brewing Company brewery concluded that the carbon footprint of a 6-bottle package was similar to that left by a car in about 12 kilometers. Whoever removes the conscience will be interested in knowing that the cans have a smaller footprint than the bottles because more units with the same weight can be transported (the glass weighs more). In any case, it should be borne in mind that one of the problems of this drink is the cost of refrigeration, which liquors and wines do not have, which depend on the cold to a lesser extent. In addition, it seems that the higher the alcohol content, the lower the carbon footprint. But not everything is bad for the cane, in favor of beer it is usually manufactured closer to the point of consumption than other drinks.
A formula to contaminate half?
The study data attracts attention, but its conclusion was perhaps more predictable than it seems, since the Japanese diet is not especially rich in meat. The Japanese eat an average of 6.2 kilos per head per year, for 15.5 of the average of the OECD countries, according to 2005 data collected at work. Wasn't there a better place in doing this study? Scientists thus justify their decision: "Although the country has a unique cuisine, the composition of the current Japanese diet is similar to what other national health organizations are recommending," says the new work. Among these recommendations are those of cutting red meat and saturated fat. In other words, if you look at those who have already achieved the goal now marked by countries like Spain, it is easy to see that it would be better to go beyond replacing meat with other foods.
However, researchers warn that the study is limited. Not for having investigated a single nation, a circumstance that they judge positive because "between 70% and 80% of food is produced and consumed within each country", but because most of the analysis has been done only by looking at CO2 Other gases, such as methane, have not received much attention because scientists did not have enough data. However, they say that it is probably enough to draw relevant general conclusions because CO2 accounts for between 60% and 90% of the global emissions of the emissions that influence the greenhouse effect.
The academics make it clear that the meat was responsible for about 30% of the carbon footprint of the homes studied, not counting the one consumed outside the home (which would be higher for the cost of maintaining a restaurant, from lighting to the cold stores). But they also ensure that, according to their data, the most polluting households emit 2.31 grams of CO2 per calorie per year, while those with the least impact remain at 1.26 grams - almost half - and that the data It is largely due to the culinary pleasures indicated. It is not easy to calculate the carbon footprint itself, as it is based on a complex combination of the environmental impact of all ingredients, from the farm to the table, but there is a much simpler and more timely calculation: how many hangovers, infinite restaurant accounts and cloying candy can you get rid of?
You can follow Buenavida on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or subscribe here to the Newsletter.