By Andrew Mahony | Melbourne Editor

Scientists argue that eating red meat can affect global warming. Image: John Leach

According to a prominent Adelaide scientist, reducing red meat in our diets can help greatly reduce Australia’s contribution to global warming.

Professor Barry Brook is certain of the impact of animal agriculture on global warming, despite certain groups calling it into question.

“If you can get every family in Australia to eat one less red meat meal per week, then that will have a significant impact on Australia’s emissions,” he said.

“If we can let people know the relative impact of eating meat verses eating vegetables, we can at least make more sense.”

Education about the issue is paramount according to Brook, the director of climate science in the Environmental Institute at the University of Adelaide.

He stressed, however, that forcing vegetarianism or veganism on the public was not the answer.

“I think it is silly to try and advocate that everyone should become a vegan, because it is not going to happen,” he said.

“I am not a vegetarian, but it does not mean that the information shouldn’t be out there to people, so they aren’t aware of the impact of their dietary choices. It’s just a gradual public education that needs a lot of ongoing work,” he said.

One of the people calling into question the impact that animal agriculture has on the environment is Associated Professor and Air Quality Specialist Frank Mitloehner from University of California.

Responding to the 2006 United Nations report ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’, which states that the livestock sector is a major contributor to global warming, Professor Mitloehner said that this is not the case.

“We certainly can reduce our greenhouse-gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk,” he said.

“In developing countries, we should adopt more efficient, Western-style farming practices, to make more food with less greenhouse gas production.” “The developed world’s efforts should focus not on reducing meat and milk consumption, but rather on increasing efficient meat production in developing countries, where growing populations need more nutritious food.”

One of the main factors why livestock contribute to global warming, the UN report stated, was the impact that methane has in heating up the globe.

Methane produced by livestock, despite only having a life in the atmosphere of around 20 years, has a warming potential approximately 72 times greater than carbon dioxide.

Author and environmental activist, Geoff Russell, argues the effect of methane from the animal agriculture industry is worse for the environment than coal-fired power stations.

“Roughly speaking, the livestock industries produce about three million tonnes of methane a year, and the coal-fired power stations produce about 185 million tonnes of CO2,” he said.

“The three million tonnes of methane has a climate forcing equivalent of about 216 million tonnes worth of CO2 because it is forcing the amount to which it traps heat is about 70 times greater than CO2.”

According to Professor Brook and Mr. Russell, the daily eating habits of a family can be tougher on the environment than the car they drive.

In an article co-written by the pair that appeared in Australasian Science Magazine, the emissions from eating red meat equated to roughly three times as much as driving the family car.

“If the family vehicle [a Ford Territory] is driven 200 km/week, then that is 60 kg of emissions from travelling,” they wrote.

“The family could be eating … 4 kg of beef per week, the CO2-e [carbon dioxide equivalent] emissions associated with the beef are well over 200 kg/week.”

Greens party member, Andrew Bartlett, supports the view of both men.

The former senator says that the reducing the methane emissions would be a quick way to help slow down global warming.

“You can make some reasonably significant gains fairly quickly by significantly reducing methane emissions because it is so powerful, and because it does fade from the atmosphere much more quickly than CO2.”