Our diet plays a crucial role in countering climate change

 By Robert McLean

Diet and its impact on climate change are remarkable.

The cover of Dr Moses
 Seenarine's revelatory book.

Our fossil fuel driven, energy-rich materialistic consumptive behaviour draws the most criticism for the damage we are doing to our climate, as it rightly should, but our penchant for animal food products is frequently and conveniently overlooked.

More than a decade of following the climate change conversation has been almost exclusively populated by discussions about limiting or even eliminating our use of fossil fuels, but rarely, if ever, does the conversation consider our diets, particularly the animal food-rich western diet.

That changed when Dr Moses Seenarine’s book “Meat ClimateChange: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming” found its way by chance onto my reading list.

Seenarine notes that the agricultural sector is responsible for at least 27 percent of manmade greenhouse gas pollution, which he points out comes from livestock production.

He argues that the most fundamental move individuals could make in mitigating climate change would be to become vegans, that is to entirely eliminate animal-based food products from their diet.

Inspired by Dr Seenarine’s book, I searched for references to meat and climate change and quickly found a plethora of articles from around the world, among them a story on The Guardian by Fiona Harvey from March last year – “Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say”.

“Growing food for the world’s burgeoning population is likely to send greenhouse gas emissions over the threshold of safety unless more is done to cut meat consumption, a new report has found.

“A widespread switch to vegetarianism would cut emissions by nearly two-thirds, the story said.

Another story from April this year on the Scientific American headed, “People Still Don't Get the Link between Meat Consumption and Climate Change” said the media has slowly but steadily fed the public information about the staggering impact of our meat-eating habits on the environment and on climate change in particular.

In a story from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), headed “Fight Climate Change by Going Vegan” discusses the positive benefits of driving more fuel-efficient cars and using energy-saving light bulbs, but then points out the “going vegan is one of the most effective ways to fight climate change”.

And then an April 20 Climate Central story – “Studies Show Link Between Red Meat and Climate Change” – says, “Shifting diets away from meat could slash in half per capita greenhouse gas emissions related to eating habits worldwide and ward off additional deforestation — a major contributor to climate change, according to scientific findings published this week.”

National Geographic buys into the conversation with Robert Kunzig’s story – “Carnivore’s Dilemma” that delves into many-sided debate – “Unhealthy. Nutritious. Cruel. Delicious. Unsustainable. All-American. In the beef debate, there are so many sides.”

Britain’s The Independent chimes in with its story – “World Meat Free Day 2016: Would eating less meat really combat climate change?”

The story by Mike Berners-Lee says: “With the food system accounting for up to a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, anything that reduces its impact will make a big difference to the climate.”

Climate change has the North Pole on the run

The North Pole is on the run. Although it can drift as much as 10 meters across a century, sometimes returning to near its origin, it has recently taken a sharp turn to the east. Climate change is the likely culprit, yet scientists are debating how much melting ice or changing rain patterns affect the pole’s wanderlust.

The geographical poles—the north and south tips of the axis that the Earth spins around—wobble over time due to small variations in the sun’s and moon’s pulls, and potentially to motion in Earth’s core and mantle. But changes on the planet’s surface can alter the poles, too. They wobble with every season as the distribution of snow and rain change, and over long stretches as well. Roughly 10,000 years ago, for example, Earth woke up from a deep freeze and the massive ice sheets sitting atop what is now Canada melted. As ice mass fled, and the depressed crust rebounded, the distribution of the planet’s mass changed and the north pole started to drift west. This pattern can be clearly seen in data from 1899 onward. But a recent zigzag in the north pole’s path (and the opposite movement in the south pole) suggests a new change is afoot.

Read the Scientific American story - “Earth Is Tipping Because of Climate Change.”

What we are seeing today in SA is a repeat of the 'worst in a century' conditions

-      Robert McLean

Conditions considered as bad as those that drove the 1983 “Ash Wednesday” bushfires in South Australia and Victoria return as I sit here to write.

Today it is extreme temperatures, high and shifting winds and a country-side left parched after the nearest hottest year on record that has destroyed homes and disrupted the lives of thousands.

Firefighters today said the cause was not their prime concern rather it was protecting lives and property.

In 1983 the cause was faulty power lines, arson, and negligence after years of extreme drought.

Firefighters and equipment from three states, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales was being used to combat what is happening in South Australia.

Within twelve hours in 1983, more than 180 fires fanned by winds of up to 110 km/h caused widespread destruction across the states of Victoria and South Australia.

“Years of severe drought and extreme weather combined to create one of Australia's worst fire days in a century,” it was then reported.

Michael Mann with his famous book, "The
Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars".

Interestingly those fires became the deadliest bushfire in Australian history, until the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 and so in 1983 we had the “worst in a century” until that was bettered (I use that advisedly) just five years ago and now conditions considered “as bad as Ash Wednesday” are back.

Surely we have the intelligence and the courage to admit that what we are seeing confirms the reality of climate change and so demands that we, as responsible people with an immediate liability (for ourselves) and a broader and deeper intergenerational concern, must act, changing our behaviour in how we use energy and consume.

In the midst of this Michael Mann, the fellow responsible for the famous “hockey stick” graphic that clearly illustrated the advance of climate change has written on Scientific American.

Mann’s story, headed: “Earth Will Cross the Climate DangerThreshold by 2036” says many reassuring claims about climate abound in the popular media, but, he says, they are misleading at best.
“Global warming continues unabated, and it remains an urgent problem.” Mann writes.

Adaptation is about how fast and how

“Adaptation, adaptation and adaptation” is what meeting the climate challenge is about according to John Pettigrew.

The president of the Shepparton-based “Slap Tomorrow” believes that in building a future in which we can happily live is all about what we do and how quickly we adapt to the dynamics of a damaged atmosphere..

Adaptation of course, needs to be accompanied by intense and effective mitigation processes, according to the Scientific American.

It tell us that in “Continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will trigger "severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people, species and 27 ecosystems," concludes a landmark draft U.N. science report expected to be approved this week.”

In a story headed: “Irreversible Climate Change Would Result from Continued Inaction” the Scientific American says: “Adapting to climate change, according to a final draft obtained by ClimateWire, can reduce some risks. But, it argues, "there are limits to its effectiveness, particularly if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced."

Polite bunch doesn't press for answers Beneath the Wisteria

by Robert McLean

Few matters of consequence were discussed Beneath the Wisteria on Saturday morning.

Those who gather each month are a polite bunch, rarely being confrontational in that they demand others, or guests, to clearly articulate their position on any process that worsens carbon dioxide emissions.

 

Guests on the Saturday just gone (October 25) were candidates for the Seat of Shepparton in the November 29 State Election, Rod Higgins (Labor), Greg Barr (Nationals), Fern Summer (independent) and Dianne Teasdale (independent).

Michael Burke, the Country Alliance candidate, was an apology.

Each candidate was allowed several minutes to talk about their response to climate change, explaining policies they would pursue and how they would do it. However, their observations and comments were largely rhetorical and rarely, if ever, alluded to what positive steps they would take to mitigate our emissions and how they would instigate the needed societal changes.

The general congenial nature of Beneath the Wisterians was on display last Saturday and most of the hard questions were simply not asked.

There appears to be a sense that, and maybe this is my interpretation, the process in which such things as state elections are embedded and integral to, is a societal behaviour that is at the root of worsening circumstances that are manifesting themselves as climate change.

Subsequently, as all four candidates had no idea of what impact they could, or would have on a deeply entrenched political system, their observations and replies were somewhat superficial.

Beyond that their generosity in spending an hour Beneath the Wisteria was appreciated.

Acidification of the world’s oceans appears remote from Shepparton concerns, but is of critical importance to everyone who lives here, but was something that most certainly wasn’t discussed on Saturday.

The world’s oceans impact dramatically on Australia’s weather and can bring weather of massively damaging dimensions to the Goulburn Valley, in terms of protracted droughts, exceedingly hot weather which combined with conditions worsened by drought produces bushfires that quickly become unstoppable wildfires and rainstorms of a magnitude that produce never seen before floods.

Scientific American tells us that acidification of the world’s oceans, a serious implication of our relentless burning of fossil fuels, is costing the world dearly.

A story headed: ”Oceans Could Lose $1 Trillion in Value Due to Acidification” says one estimate looking only at lost ecosystem protections, such as that provided by tropical reefs, cited an economic value of $1 trillion annually.

World's largest solar array powers up in Arizona

“Global climate change is here, and it’s only going to get worse, according to a White House report released on Tuesday.”

So says the Scientific American in its story headed: “World’s largest solar Array set to crank out 290 megawatts of sunshine power”.

The story continues: “To combat rising sea levels and blistering summers, the Obama administration has been pushing for clean, renewable energy sources that cut down on carbon emissions. Now one of its projects is poised to pan out: Agua Caliente, the largest photovoltaic solar power facility in the world, was completed last week in Arizona.”

Misleading stories, but the threshold is still just 22 years away

Just 22 years stands between what we have today and what we will have after crossing a climate threshold.

A story published by Scientific American headed: “Earth will cross the climate danger threshold by 2036” tells us that the rate of global warming may have hit a plateau, but a climate crisis still looms in the near future.

The Scientific American article points to seriously misleading articles in several stories published by various international media, but added: “Global warming continues unabated and it remains an urgent problem.”

It reports: “Most scientists concur that two degrees C of warming above the temperature during pre-industrial time would harm all sectors of civilization – food, water, health, land, national security, energy and economic prosperity.”

Charts and graphs make climate change understandable

Scientific American has reduced climate change to an understandable 12 charts and graphics.

A story headed: “12 graphics that contain everything you need to know about climate change” quite bluntly says “Climate change is real, it’s here and will be affecting the planet for a long, long time”.

It says the greenhouse gas pollution shows little sign of slowing.

Scientific American says the included charts and graphics illustrate and explain what that might mean for you, your children and many generations to come.

Chance is our friend, but we need to understand it

Humanity is here by chance.

Sir Martin Rees.

And despite our wonderful and innovative technology, it is again chance that stops us straying into harm’s way.

The Scientific American, in the story “Doom and Gloom by 2100” by Julie Wakefield, quotes British cosmologist and astrophysicist, Sir Martin Rees, who thinks science and technology is creating not only new opportunities, but also new threats.

So compelled was he to alert people to these hazards and the special responsibilities of scientists, that in 2004 he wrote the book “Our Final Hour”.

Rees directed Cambridge’s Institute of Astronomy until 1992 and then served for a decade a Royal Society Research professor before assuming the Mastership at Cambridge’s Trinity College.

He insists that astronomers are well positioned to ponder the fate of humanity.

Writing about Rees, Wakefield says: “Innovation is changing things faster than ever before, and such increasing unpredictability leaves civilization more vulnerable to misadventure as well as disaster by design”.

Wakefield writes that Rees has made a £1,000 wager he hopes to lose arguing that a biological incident will claim one million lives by 2020.

Rees said: “In this increasingly connected world where individuals have more power than ever before at their fingertips, society should worry more about some kind of massive calamity, however improbable.”

He argues that it is possible to tip the balance to civilization’s favour. However, to do that, he says, environmental and biomedical issues should be higher on the political agenda.

“To raise the debate above the level of rhetoric,” he says, “the public must be much better informed.”

US magazine discusses climate change response

Climate change continues unabated.

The US based magazine, Scientific American, has written about “10 Solutions for Climate Change -Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change”.

The article is worth the few minutes it takes to read, particularly if you stand among those considering a response to climate change.