News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Finance 
 Indian climate guru hopes to steer world away from steak 

Indian climate guru hopes to steer world away from steak

23 Nov, 2009 06:44 AM
NEW DELHI: As the world struggles to come up with a climate change deal, India's Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, has challenged it to follow the example of millions in his country and refuse to eat beef in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Ramesh, a vegetarian, says those who refrain from eating beef are helping to fight climate change. "The single most important measure that can be taken in the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to stop eating beef," he said.

Mr Ramesh has won strong support in his campaign against beef-eating from R.K. Pachauri, an Indian climate change scientist who headed the influential United Nations panel on climate change.

"I'm happy that the minister is agreeing with me on this," Dr Pachauri said. "If you look at the beef cycle today, you first clear forests, which increases emissions, then you feed cattle all kinds of food grain, which is energy intensive, and then you kill and refrigerate these animals and then they are transported long distances, then you buy it and refrigerate it.

''If you count all the emissions associated with this entire cycle it is huge."

Last year a UN Food and Agriculture Organisation study found that meat production accounted for about one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions - emissions that are causing temperatures to rise and changing climate patterns.

Mr Ramesh's comments come two weeks before the Copenhagen summit on climate change, at which the position of India and its neighbour China will be crucial to any international deal.

India has argued consistently that the main responsibility for reducing greenhouse gases must be taken by wealthy Western countries with high per-capita emissions. It has resisted pressure to adopt binding targets for limiting its own greenhouse gas emissions. Indian officials say any climate change treaty must be equitable.

Dr Pachauri said the Indian Government was "well within its rights" to expect more from rich countries.

"The developed world has just not lived up to its obligations or responsibilities.

"The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere is entirely the result of 150 years of industrialisation and so-called economic development in the developed world, as a result of which we have the problem we have today."

But Dr Pachauri said India needed to do more to project what it was doing domestically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

India's position on climate change is likely to come under fresh scrutiny this week, when the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, visits Washington for talks with the US President, Barack Obama.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The fact that Hindus & Sikhs due to religious beliefs do not eat beef and the cow is their sacred animal, would have nothing to do with it would it? This is just more rubbish to support the now proven Global Warming HOAX.
Posted by MUKTA, 23/11/2009 8:35:54 AM
If ever you needed proof that the carbon reduction schemes won't work, this is it. Even if you accept that beef is responsible for 20% of greenhouse emissions, what you have here is a minister moralising over 20% while studiously ignoring the other 80%. When he says he wants rich countries to pay what he really means is America. But the fact is America is insolvent, it can never repay its debt to China. And it can't afford an EST even if it wanted one. China on the other hand is in a dilemma that happens to everyone who loans money to people that can't pay it back. If you shut them down you'll never get your money back. So all you can do is to keep propping them up and hope like hell that one day they come good and you at least get some of your money back. Australia on the other hand is simply at the mercy of an irresponsible and egotistical little nutter.
Posted by Qlander, 23/11/2009 9:59:54 AM
Mr Ramesh makes a good point. The true climate change proportion of the 'effective' greenhouse gases from livestock production is more like 50%. Most of the world's meat and dairy is grown in factories. Large areas of the Amazon are cleared to grow soy for feeding pork & chicken in factories in Europe. We would need a fraction of the land in cultivation if we just ate the soy. Look, there are too many people on this earth - we need to share the resources, & this means we here in the west, who for so long have so much, will have to do with less in the furture. I don't think it's too much to ask people to eat less meat. On the bright side for Aussie farmers kangaroos produce almost no methane (Methane is 25-35 times more 'reactive ' than CO2 depending one who you listen to), so maybe we just need to change the critters we eat. Barnaby should be pushing the government for funding for farmers to put wind farms & solar panels on their land to positively face the future, not spoil the process fighing for the past. Those days are gone, so we need to wake up or we will be left behind. When the world can no longer use coal, farmers will be king again, but they need to be savey now. RENEWABLES
Posted by Food scientist, 23/11/2009 3:15:53 PM
Most who comment on carbon and greenhouse outcomes, usually leave out some of the accounting. Kangaroos are a mobile animal that keep removing the most digestible component of the pasture. This means the quality of the diet left for ruminant animals is lowered and so methane emissions per kg of production rise. You can't blame the kangaroo for accumulating in the paddock that has the highest quality diet. If we want to maximise soil carbon, animals should be eating excess growth and not the first growth of plants. An uncontrolled animal is always going to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Kangaroos usually shut down more carbon flows than they actually consume.
Posted by Roo truth, 24/11/2009 7:41:39 AM
Food is necessary regardless of your personal choice - if he wants to do something really effecive he could look at the other 80% and have everyone boycott the excessive and unnecessary 'polluters' like motor racing, ocean liners, massive pleasure craft, traffic in general, airconditioning, vast acres of neon lighting, production of endless plastic goods that could be made of natural reusable materials, mobile phones, computer games consols, over sized energy zapping tvs, the list is endless - Oh and that great contributor - the over population of the earth!!
Posted by Just thinking, 24/11/2009 8:01:03 AM
There are cattle in India, just most don't kill them for religious reasons. But I'm sure it would not be convenient for anyone to see the cost in feeding them for a lifetime rather than until they become food. Food Scientist: kangaroos?? Check out the breeding cycle and see if they can be sustainably produced to feed people. This topic has been well and truly covered - so if you believe kangaroos are a "solution" to anything check your science.
Posted by Alternative View, 24/11/2009 8:14:42 AM
Garbage - the single most important thing is to reduce world population growth!
Posted by You're joking, 24/11/2009 8:18:17 AM
Really, they let these flea bitten cattle roam the streets whilst millions starve!
Posted by tigerdicky, 24/11/2009 8:34:35 AM
What's with the promotion of soy Food Scientist??? I have some 50 peer reviewed scientific papers decrying soy as an anti-nutrient as it is toxic in its raw state, binds calcium, zinc, magnesium and iron preventing their absorption and thereby causing many dietary based pathologies, has phyto oestrogens that are now implicated in breast cancer, has goitrogens that similarly are being implicated in thyroid abnormalities and cancer, causes clumping of red blood cells retarding growth...there is so much mounting evidence against soy that it is being called the new asbestos. If you are promoting soy you must work for a soy producing company.
Posted by deb, 24/11/2009 9:03:51 AM
We need to stop eating sugar as well as large areas of forests have been logged then palm sugar trees planted. And we need to stop eating wheat AND rice, etc as areas are cleared for planting them and the plants need fertiliser (releases carbon) and then the grain needs to be transported ... MORE carbon!! I think we are going to starve ... or we could just be sensible about this
Posted by Farmer Dave, 24/11/2009 9:23:21 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
22 November, 2009
POLL
Q: How has the deregulation of export wheat marketing affected your farm's profits this harvest?

Increased profits
(22.1%)

Decreased profits
(56.2%)

No change
(21.7%)

Total Votes: 258
Poll Date: 23 November, 2009
BLOGS
19 November, 2009

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC FW



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...