SOLAR TODAY - November/December 2009

advances | climate change action
Food vs. Fuel (vs. Livestock)
What should the real debate be? by LAurIE GuEvArA-STONE

As biofuel research and production projects grow, questions multiply regarding the use of farmland to grow fuel. However, most of the debate misses the real point — diet.

The majority of grain grown in the United States feeds neither people nor cars. It feeds animals. Livestock consume 90 percent of America’s soy crop, 80 percent of its corn and 70 percent of its grain. David Pimentel, professor of entomology at Cornell University, points out, “If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States was consumed directly by people, the number who could be fed is nearly 800 million.”

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nearly 80 percent of all the agricultural land in the United States is used to feed animals. That’s roughly half our total land mass.

In the developing world, the situation is more ironic. Farmers who used to grow food for their families are now raising livestock to sell to meat-eaters in industrialized countries. In some of the world’s poorest nations, grain that could be used to feed the hungry is instead fed to animals, which end up on the tables of the rich. Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, calculates that 80 percent of the world’s hungry children live in countries with food surpluses. However, the excess grain is instead fed to animals. The preponderance of U.S. grain exports is used to feed livestock, not people. Livestock thus devour most of the grain produced on the planet. This is purely a 20th-century development, Rifkin says.

Dr. Waldo Bello, executive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, contends that, “There is enough food in the world for everyone. But tragically,

much of the world’s food and land resources are tied up in producing beef and other livestock — food for the well-off — while millions of children and adults suffer from malnutrition and starvation. In Central America, staple crop production has been replaced by cattle ranching, which now occupies two-thirds of the arable land.”

Laurie guevara-stone is the international program manager at solar energy international in Carbondale, Colo. Contact her at laurie@ solarenergy.org.

tasty dinner or Climate Offender?

equal

1 pound CO2 to miles of: produced driven Beef 14. 8 pounds 20. 59 Pork 3. 8 pounds 5. 3 Chicken 1.1 pounds 1.53 Soybeans 0.26 pounds 0.36

Source: Nathan Fiala, University of California-Irvine

istoCkPhoto.CoM

According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), in 2008, the amount of cereal on the planet used to produce biofuel was 13 percent of the amount of cereal fed to meat animals. If most of us dialed back on our meat-heavy diets, there would be enough land to grow food for all the people on the planet and to grow a portion of our fuel. We would not have to make a choice between feeding the hungry and feeding our cars.

Our carnivorous diet also affects our air and water. Stanford professors Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich found that it takes 2,500 to 6,000 gallons ( 9,500 to 23,000 liters) of fresh water to produce one pound (0.4 kilograms) of meat. A pound of soybeans can be grown with 240 gallons (900 liters) of water. That means you can save more water by not eating a pound of beef than you can by not showering for six or seven months. And you’d probably smell a lot better too.

The Earth’s climate is also greatly affected by our diet. In November 2006, the FAO concluded that animal agriculture is the leading source of greenhouse gases, ahead of transportation.

The FAO reported that livestock—

•;use;30;percent;of;the;Earth’s;entire;land;surface;

•;are;now;grazing;on;70;percent;of;former;rainforest lands in the Amazon;

•;account;for;37;percent;of;human-induced;methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2);

•;and;produce;65;percent;of;human-related;nitrous oxide (at 296 times the global warming potential of CO2).

Bottom line: Eating meat causes almost 40 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and planes in the world combined. World Bank consultant Nathan Fiala says, “A family of four that gives up eating beef one day a week has basically traded in their pickup for a Prius.”

The average North American who quits eating meat saves a ton and a half of carbon dioxide per year. That’s equivalent to installing a 3.75-kilowatt photovoltaic system in a sunny climate. And a lot cheaper.

The choice should be between sustaining our meat-based diet and feeding the hungry. If we make the right choice, we’ll have enough land and grain left over to fuel our cars, while at the same time reducing our impact on climate change.