Another instance of misleading UN global warming data?

Followers or regular readers may remember my earlier posts (noted below) that discussed a United Nations (UN) claim that sadly has gained considerable traction in the mainstream media. Back in 2006, the UN published a report stating that the livestock industry is the major culprit behind global warming. I went on to post my frustration and concern regarding the radical response within Massachusetts to this UN report. Specifically, the city of Cambridge and my own university dining facility have implemented "Meatless Monday" or "Friday Flexitarian" dietary policies in order to combat global warming.

You also may remember that I notified my university dining facility that I would no longer be purchasing food from them as long as such a personally invasive policy was endorsed. They responded, but expectantly were not swayed to change the policy because of my one email. But, today I may have gained some surprise support.

When perusing internet news, I stumbled across the following American Chemical Society (ACS) report:

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=CNBP_024369&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=28aee2ce-192f-4158-8d7b-136c8433e8eb

This article describes a recent presentation at an ACS meeting by University of California scientist, Dr. Frank Mitloehner. In his talk, Dr. Mitloehner directly challenges the 2006 UN report which claims that the livestock industry is the leading greenhouse gas producer, responsible for 18% of the total global emissions. The basis of his argument is that the the UN did not equitably compare the livestock and transportation (fossil fuel) industry. Specifically, Mitloehner explained that the UN calculated the livestock industry greenhouse gas footprint by counting all sectors of the livestock industry, from growing animal feed, to animal digestive emissions, as well as downstream steps of processing meat and milk into foods. By totaling these many steps, the UN arrived at the widely quoted 18% figure stamped on the livestock industry. However, this same broad analysis was not done for the transportation industry. Dr. Mitloehner discussed that the "transportation analysis factored in only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving and not all other transport life cycle" stages such as the acquisition, processing, burning and shipping of fossil fuels. Inclusion of these other parameters would actually show that transportation dwarfs the livestock industry contribution to global greenhouse gas emission.

Now, this doesn't meant that efforts shouldn't be made to improve the livestock industry. As Dr. Mitloehner states, this "this lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue. I would even argue that it has once again discredited the UN's credibility and underscores the shoddy nature of their scientific analyses. Furthermore, it highlights the ridiculousness of liberal policies to ban meat in the wake of sensational media hype over this issue.

Needless to say, I forwarded this ACS article to my university dining facility. I am interested to see what their response will be in the wake of learning that their personally intrusive "Friday Flexitarian" meal station was irrationally radical and not based on a sound data analysis.

I don't know if you agree, but rather than worrying so much about this fictitious cow and pig threat to the planet, maybe we should be more worried about the transformation of people into such easily manipulated sheep!




Earlier referenced posts:

Friday, March 12, 2010
Flexivores welcome, or not!
http://aroguescientist.blogspot.com/2010/03/flexivores-welcome-or-not.html

Sunday, February 14, 2010
Cows and pigs are responsible for global warming
http://aroguescientist.blogspot.com/2010/02/cows-and-pigs-are-responsible-for.html

Cows and pigs are responsible for global warming

Doctors often recommend lowering red meat consumption to minimize the risk of obesity, cancer and coronary disease. In a 2007 Lancet Medical Journal article titled "Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health", McMichael and colleagues argue that cutting red meat consumption could also help combat global warming. The little data that the paper shows has been adapted from the FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, an organization that proposes that livestock production is responsible for 18% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.

Other online websites from National Geographic have reiterated the sentiments of the McMichael article, and expand the recommended ban of meat to include both beef and pork. This article can be found at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16573-eating-less-meat-could-cut-climate-costs.html

Apparently, this new scientific theory has found a following in Cambridge Massachusetts where a recent city Congressional panel convened to brainstorm new city legislation aimed at combating the "climate emergency". The public notes from this meeting, which was held December 12th 2009, can be found online at:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/Climate_Congress_Notes_12-12-09.pdf

The controversy sparked by this meeting has been featured on many major news stations for its numerous proposed taxes on the use of both plastic and paper bags, as well as the disruptive elimination of all street curb-side parking within the city. Most alarming of all, these Cambridge meeting notes propose ways to change behavior by mandating "diet changes like eating no (or less) meat" because people don't know the "connection between red meat and methane gas emissions." Explicit recommendations to "try not eating meat for 1-2 days" were made.

These Cambridge Congressional meeting notes also mention public reactions to these proposed policies because people are not "ready to make sacrifices. However, extreme actions may be necessary." 

I don't know about you, but I'm a bit scared of what these "necessary" and "extreme actions" may entail. It's quite alarming that governments in America are trying to regulate our daily diets. Can anyone say Big Brother? Are we going to one day have red meat and pork banned from the grocery stores and only be able to consume it illegally in underground hideouts reminiscent of speakeasies during the prohibition era?

It also seems ludicrous to me that Massachusetts is willing to push an agenda to make meat a controlled substance because it harms the environment, when it pushed to decriminalize marijuana through question 2 of the 2008 election ballot. Apparently Massachusetts didn't get the memo about all the health problems from marijuana use, let alone the crime associated with drug-trafficking. But that discussion is for another day.