In this file:

 

·         Goldsmiths bans beef from university cafes to tackle climate crisis

University of London college will also seek to limit single-use plastics

... Beef products will no longer be available in the institution’s cafes and shops when the academic year begins in September...

 

·         Sorry, but banning beef won’t save the planet

Academic standards typically require students to back up claims with supporting evidence, but, curiously in this instance, the university’s written announcement offers no backing detail or scientific justification to explain its policy or why or how banning beef will help in its bid to halt climate change.

 

·         Going Vegan Has Half Climate Change Impact of One Transatlantic Flight

... by focusing on eating less meat, consumers are being misled on what’s really attributing to greenhouse gas emissions… it’s giving the other factors a “get out of jail free card” when it comes to lowering the impact on climate change...   

 

 

Goldsmiths bans beef from university cafes to tackle climate crisis

University of London college will also seek to limit single-use plastics

 

Amy Walker, The Guardian (UK)

12 Aug 2019

 

A university has banned the sale of beef in campus food outlets in order to help tackle the climate emergency.

 

Goldsmiths, University of London, is also attempting to phase out single-use plastics and installing more panels to power its buildings in New Cross, as part of a move to become carbon neutral by 2025.

 

Beef products will no longer be available in the institution’s cafes and shops when the academic year begins in September, while an additional 10p levy will be added to the sale of bottled water and disposable plastic cups to discourage their use.

 

Prof Frances Corner, who took up the post of Goldsmiths’ warden this month, said the college would also switch to a completely clean energy supplier when its current contract ends and look into how all students could take curriculum options related to the climate crisis.

 

A psychology undergraduate, Isabelle Gosse, 20, said she thought the move was “a really good start to being more environmentally friendly”.

 

She added: “I think it’s a really positive move – Goldsmiths is recognising its own power and accountability in being more environmentally conscious.

 

“Banning the sale of beef meat on campus, phasing out single-use plastics and the other pledges that the new warden has made highlights the current climate emergency that the world is facing.”

 

Scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet found that avoiding meat and dairy products was the single biggest way to reduce humans’ environmental impact.

 

Previous research had revealed that the environmental impact of beef dwarfs that of other meat including chicken and pork.

 

Corner said: “Though I have only just arrived at Goldsmiths, it is immediately obvious that our staff and students care passionately about the future of our environment and that they are determined to help deliver the step change we need to cut our carbon footprint drastically and as quickly as possible.”

 

From 1 December, Goldsmiths’ endowment fund will also cease to hold investments in companies that generate more than 10% of their revenue from fossil fuel extraction.

 

Joe Leam, the president of Goldsmiths’ union, said: “Banning beef is a bold move. Phasing out plastics and going to fully renewable energy are brilliant too.

 

“The aim of being carbon neutral by 2025 is a great aim – let’s hope the management hold true to this. There is always more that can be done – but I think it’s a great start and other institutions should learn from this move.”

 

Rosie Rogers, a climate emergency campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: “It’s encouraging to see an institution like Goldsmiths not simply declaring a climate emergency, but acting on it...

 

more

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/12/goldsmiths-bans-beef-from-university-cafes-to-tackle-climate-crisis

 

 

Sorry, but banning beef won’t save the planet

 

Beef Central (Australia) 

August 13, 2019

 

An English University has announced it will ban the sale of beef products from its campus food outlets as part of its newly adopted commitment to fight global warming.

 

Academic standards typically require students to back up claims with supporting evidence, but, curiously in this instance, the university’s written announcement offers no backing detail or scientific justification to explain its policy or why or how banning beef will help in its bid to halt climate change.

 

In one of her first moves as the university’s new Warden, Professor Frances Corner yesterday declared a climate emergency and committed the university to becoming carbon neutral by 2025.

 

Professor Corner, previously the head of the London College of Fashion, and a self-described fashion activist, said in the announcement the university will take several steps to achieve zero emissions within six years.

 

In addition to the ban on beef, action includes adding a 10p levy to bottled water and single use plastic cups to discourage their use, installing more solar panels and switching to a 100 percent clean energy supplier as soon as practicable.

 

Professor Corner said the growing global call for organisations to take seriously their responsibilities for halting climate change was “impossible to ignore”.

 

“Though I have only just arrived at Goldsmiths, it is immediately obvious that our staff and students care passionately about the future of our environment and that they are determined to help deliver the step change we need to cut our carbon footprint drastically and as quickly as possible.

 

“Declaring a climate emergency cannot be empty words.

 

“I truly believe we face a defining moment in global history and Goldsmiths now stands shoulder to shoulder with other organisations willing to call the alarm and take urgent action to cut carbon use.”

 

However the statement offered no detail or scientific justification to support the unversity’s new policy or to explain how banning beef products will help it to halting climate change.

 

The position ignores the science which shows that many claims that beef is a leading cause of climate change are based on  inaccurate initial measurements and flawed assumptions that do not account for the dramatic variances that can exist in emissions intensity between production systems and between cattle industries in different countries.

 

Giving up meat won’t save the climate

 

One of the leading voices in this debate is US scientist Dr Frank Mitloehner from the University of California Davis, and chair of the United Nation Food and Agricultural Organisation’s Livestock Environmental and Performance Partnership committee, where he works with 300 of the world’s leading experts on life cycle assessments for methane emissions of different livestock and feed commodities.

 

An expert in mitigating air emissions from livestock operations, his critique of the 2006 UN Livestock Long Shadow report debunked its still widely reported conclusion that livestock generate more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire global transport industry.

 

As he wrote in October 2018, this incorrect claim continues to underlie false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate change.

 

US Environmental Protection Agency data shows the largest sources of US GHG emissions in 2016 were electricity production (28 percent of total emissions), transportation (28 percent) and industry (22 percent). All of agriculture accounted for a total of 9 percent.

 

All of animal agriculture contributes less than half of this amount, representing 3.9 percent of total US greenhouse gas emissions.

 

The Livestock’s Long Shadow report which received widespread international attention, and is still widely quoted, stated that livestock produced a staggering 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

 

This latter claim was wrong, and has since been corrected by Henning Steinfeld, the report’s senior author.

 

Dr Mitloehner has explained that the problem was that FAO analysts used a comprehensive life-cycle assessment to study the climate impact of livestock, but a different method when they analysed transportation.

 

For livestock, they considered every factor associated with producing meat. This included emissions from fertiliser production, converting land from forests to pastures, growing feed, and direct emissions from animals (belching and manure) from birth to death.

 

However, when they looked at transportation’s carbon footprint, they ignored impacts on the climate from manufacturing vehicle materials and parts, assembling vehicles and maintaining roads, bridges and airports. Instead, they only considered the exhaust emitted by finished cars, trucks, trains and planes.

 

As a result, the FAO’s comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock to those from transportation was greatly distorted.

 

To its credit, the FAO immediately owned up to its error. Unfortunately, the agency’s initial claim that livestock was responsible for the lion’s share of world greenhouse gas emissions had already received wide coverage.

 

“To this day, we struggle to “unring” the bell,” he says.

 

In its most recent assessment report, the FAO estimated that livestock produces 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. There is no comparable full life-cycle assessment for transportation.

 

However, as Steinfeld has pointed out, direct emissions from transportation versus livestock can be compared and amount to 14 versus 5 percent, respectively.

 

Many people continue to think avoiding meat as infrequently as once a week will make a significant difference to the climate.

 

But according to one recent study, even if Americans eliminated all animal protein from their diets, they would reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by only 2.6 percent.

 

According to our research at the University of California, Davis, if the practice of Meatless Monday were to be adopted by all Americans, we’d see a reduction of only 0.5 percent.

 

The value of animal agriculture ...

 

more, including links 

https://www.beefcentral.com/news/sorry-but-banning-beef-wont-save-the-planet/

 

 

Going Vegan Has Half Climate Change Impact of One Transatlantic Flight

 

Tyne Morgan, FarmJournal's Pork

August 8, 2019

 

Media reports sent a flurry of headlines Thursday suggesting consumers should eat less meat. These reports claimed a study from the United Nations suggested consumers should eat less meat in order to curb climate change. The report–from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPPC)– looked into ways to reduce the impact on climate change.

 

Frank Mitloehner with University of California-Davis is frustrated with the media coverage so far, which he said started with news outlets in the United Kington. He said while the IPPC report focused on land use and land use change, it didn’t tell consumers to eat less meat.

 

“The IPCC said that we do need to visit our agricultural practices, we need to be more sustainable overall globally in how we grow food, and I totally agree with that,” Mitloehner says. “There are certain land use practices that are not sustainable. So, we have to think about how we do a better job. Where I differ in the reporting in them saying, ‘we need to change what we eat in order to curb climate change,’ they are putting us on the wrong path for solutions.”

 

He says by focusing on eating less meat, consumers are being misled on what’s really attributing to greenhouse gas emissions.

 

“If you were to switch from an omnivore diet to a vegan diet for one year, that would be half the impact of one flight from the United States to Europe with respect to carbon emissions,” he says. “Going vegan for one year is half the impact of one transatlantic flight. So, what I'm saying here is not there's no impact, there certainly is an impact, but it is other day to day life choices that we make that are way more environmentally harmful.”

 

He thinks by the media focus on eating fewer burgers or eating less meat as a whole, it’s giving the other factors a “get out of jail free card” when it comes to lowering the impact on climate change.

 

“According to the Environmental Protection Agency, in the United States, of all greenhouse gases, the livestock sector emits a little bit less than 4%,” he says. “Contrast that to the 80% of those industries that consume very heavily fossil fuels: that's transportation, power production that you use, and industries such as the cement industry. “

 

Mitloehner says what confuses people are when global numbers are used versus statistics from the U.S. He says those figures can be misleading. While the U.S. livestock industry emits less than 4%, globally livestock produces 14.5% of greenhouse gases. He says those claiming livestock is what’s causing climate change uses the international number, because it sounds more extreme or scary...

 

more, including links, video report [7:44 min.]   

https://www.porkbusiness.com/article/going-vegan-has-half-climate-change-impact-one-transatlantic-flight