The Low-Carbon Diet

The Low-Carbon Diet

Change your lightbulbs? Or your car? If you want to fight global warming, it's time to consider a different diet.

By Mike Tidwell
Published: January-February 2009

All true. But we also evolved as people who defecated indiscriminately in the woods and who didn't brush our teeth. Somehow we've moved to a higher level on those counts. Now, with potentially catastrophic climate change hovering around the corner and with our briskets and London broil helping to drive the process, it's time to evolve some more.

A compromise in recent years, of course, has been the idea of animals raised locally and organically. Becoming a "locavore" who eats regional fruits and vegetables in season as much as possible makes abundant sense, of course. And animals from your area can lower the environmental impacts of your diet in many ways while simultaneously saving cherished local farmland and progressive farm families.

But with global warming, here's the inconvenient truth about meat and dairy products: If you eat them, regardless of their origin and how they were produced, you significantly contribute to climate change. Period. If your beef is from New Zealand or your own backyard, if your lamb is organic free-range or factory farmed, it still has a negative impact on global warming.

This is true for several reasons. Again, the biological reality of ruminant digestion is that methane is released. The feed can be local and organic, but the methane is the same, escaping into the atmosphere and trapping heat with impressive efficiency. Second, no matter the farming method, livestock makes manure that produces nitrous oxide, an even more awesomely impressive heat trapper. Livestock in the United States generates a billion tons of manure per year, accounting for 65 percent of the planet's anthropogenic nitrous oxide emissions.

Even poultry, while less harmful, also contributes. Ironically, data released in 2007 by Adrian Williams of Cranfield University in England show that when all factors are considered, organic, free-range chickens have a 20 percent greater impact on global warming than conventionally raised broiler birds. That's because "sustainable" chickens take longer to raise, and eat more feed. Worse, organic eggs have a 14 percent higher impact on the climate than eggs from caged chickens, according to Williams. 

"If we want to fight global warming through the food we buy, then one thing's clear: We have to drastically reduce the meat we consume," says Tara Garnett of London's Food Climate Research Network.

So while some of us Americans fashionably fret over our food's travel budget and organic content, Garnett says the real question is, "Did it come from an animal or did it not come from an animal?"


Which brings us back to vegetarianism and why I live a meat-free life. The facts speak for themselves. If we really want to fight climate change, we should change our lightbulbs and purchase hybrid cars and, above all, vote for politicians committed to a clean energy future. But we should also eat less meat, a lot less, or none at all.

I believe consumer habits are starting to change similarly to the way they've shifted with compact fluorescent bulbs. Ten years ago people complained about the harsh quality of light from fluorescents and the hassle of switching them out. But the bulbs are now made to produce a much warmer quality of light and the price has come down. What's more, in seven years of using only CFLs at my home, I've never had a guest make a single comment.

In the near future, as we increasingly discuss the climate "facts" of meat consumption, and as veggie cuisine gets still easier at home and at restaurants, we'll see more and more people changing their diets in the same way they're switching to CFLs in droves now. Of this I'm sure.

But when it comes to food, the facts are not enough for many people. Of this I'm also sure. A holistic nutritionist in my neighborhood says one's ideas about food reside in the same part of the brain that houses our ideas and beliefs about religion. It's not all rational, in other words. Facts abound about the harm of fatty, sugary foods, yet the obesity epidemic grows. And I can't count the number of environmental conferences I've attended where meat was served in abundance. Even Michael Pollan's 2006 bestsellerThe Omnivore's Dilemma, wherein he dissects with encyclopedic thoroughness the eco-hazards and animal cruelty issues surrounding meat and egg production--even this book astonishingly mentions the words global warmingonly two times and climate change not at all. In 464 pages. That's highly unreasonable, in my view.

All of which is to say that for people to care, the climate-food discussion must be about more than just facts, more than pounds of greenhouse gases per units of food. It's got to be about morality, about right versus wrong. And I don't mean the usual morality of environmental "stewardship." Or even the issue of cruelty to farm animals. I'm talking here about cruelty to people, about the explicit harm to humans that results from meat consumption and its role as a driving force in climate change. Knowingly eating food that makes you fat or harms your local fish and birds is one thing. Knowingly eating food that makes children across much of the world hungry is another.

Magazine Category

Author Profile

Mike Tidwell

Type: Author | From: Audubon Magazine


here are a lot of articles

here are a lot of articles out there on this particular point, but you have described another side of the topic. This post gives a lot of fantastic information and inspiration. I'm impressed with your views on this issue and I agree with a lot of your ideas.

Wow!I seriously loved reading

Wow!I seriously loved reading your website. It turned out well written as well as simple to comprehend. Unlike additional blogs I have got read.

Eat, Drink, And Shrink Ebook:

Eat, Drink, And Shrink Ebook: The Ultimate Blueprint For Achieving The Body Of A Magazine Fitness Model With The Health Of A 22-Year Old..

Great article i must say. It

Great article i must say. It affects a lot of urgent problems in our minds. We can't be indifferent to these issues. There are a lot of articles out there on this particular point, but you have described another side of the topic. This post gives a lot of fantastic information and inspiration. I'm impressed with your views on this issue and I agree with a lot of your ideas.





thanks you

thanks you

Thanks! I would encourage you

Thanks! I would encourage you to read a book called _Meat: A Benign Extravagance_, by Simon Fairlie, for further perspective on this.

I think you are forgetting

I think you are forgetting one thing Mike. It isn't how much greenhouse gas livestock produce, it is the NET carbon cycle that matters. Plants absorb CO2 and Methanotrophic bacteria in healthy soil break down methane. Both processes and many more eventually lead to sequestered carbon in the soil in the form of humus.

I got this site from my

I got this site from my friend who informed me regarding this web site and at the moment this time I am visiting this web site and reading very informative posts here

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.