Freedom or Tyranny.com

Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of global emissions of carbon dioxide the report pointed out. (Getty Images)

dailymail.co.uk
November 2009

Cutting a sausage a day from the average British diet is necessary to save the planet, scientists claim.

Their controversial report, which partly blames meat-eaters for climate change, was backed by Environment Secretary Hilary Benn’s department last night.

The scientists called for a 30 per cent reduction in the number of farm animals bred for meat to prevent rising temperatures and rising sea levels.

The average meat intake in men is 970g a week and in women 550g a week. A 30 per cent reduction in men is equivalent to seven 40g sausages, two 130g chicken breasts, four 70g lamb chops or 12 bacon rashers of 25g.

Such a reduction would also bring significant health benefits, the scientists said, by reducing premature deaths from heart disease in Britain by 17 per cent  -  equivalent to 18,000 lives a year.

They claimed food production from animals was a major source of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and that by 2030, rising demand for meat was expected to drive up livestock production globally by 85 per cent from 2000 levels, leading to substantial emission increases.

full text here

The Guardian
Friday 23 December 2005

Brides and grooms do it. Transatlantic travellers do it. And you might even be getting it for Christmas. Neutralising your carbon emissions is becoming the must-do activity for the eco-conscious citizen. But now an international team of scientists has raised an unexpected objection: some tree-planting projects may, they suggest, be doing more harm than good.

Carbon offsetting allows people to pay someone else to atone for their climate sins by soaking up the CO2 that they produce. And with the consequences of global warming becoming more apparent, more Britons are opting to undo their personal share of the damage.

Last year companies and individuals in the UK spent around £4m offsetting carbon emissions. The Kyoto protocol allows member countries to do the same through carbon trading.

But it seems the guilt-free option is not as simple as writing a cheque and leaving it to someone else to sort out. Researchers have found that planting trees to soak up carbon can have detrimental knock on effects. “I believe we haven’t thought through the consequences of this,” says team-member Robert Jackson at Duke University in North Carolina, “I think the policy could backfire on us, but it will take decades to play out.”

His team pooled more than 500 separate yearly observations from studies from five continents which compared planted areas with plots nearby that did not have trees. They report in Science that the plantations had a drastic effect on stream flow. By sucking water out of the ground and evaporating it from their leaves the trees reduced flow by half. And 13% of streams dried up for at least a year. This would have effects downstream where less water would be available for plants and animals.

full text here