Latest news with #PaulBehrens
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
Scientist reveals why we should quit or cut down on burgers to save the planet
However you prefer yours, a juicy beef burger can be satisfying but now experts say we should limit our intake to just one every couple of weeks in order to help curb climate change. Professor Paul Behrens of the University of Oxford claims people must cut down on meat and dairy to save the planet, and he argued that long–term climate change could make it impossible to grow food in one-third of current production areas. The professor wrote on The Conversation: 'A shift to plant-rich diets in the UK would free an area almost the size of Scotland [30,000 square miles].' Those of us who love chicken, pork, and beef shouldn't worry, though, as you could still enjoy your favorite meals. Professor Behrens said: 'It's not even vegetarian, although it does include a more reasonable - and healthier - amount of meat and dairy. 'For example, it still includes a hamburger every fortnight.' The professor explained that a shift to plant–rich diets would provide more space to grow crops and help curb rising food prices. He cited research by agricultural economists that found one-third of food price increases in UK in 2023 resulted from climate change. Other studies also predicted significant food price increases every year over the coming decade. Consistent stress on the food system could even cause collapse, according to some experts, which could prompt civil unrest and lead to riots. Professor Behrens said: 'This trajectory of climate-driven food price hikes - leading to social unrest and political decay - is not inevitable. 'The scientific consensus shows that the biggest opportunity we have for reducing food's environmental impacts across many countries is increasing the amount of plants we eat and reducing meat and dairy intake.' A previous study, also carried out by academics at the University of Oxford, revealed that eating just 100g of meat per day - less than a single burger - created four times more greenhouse gases when compared to a vegan diet. Peter Scarborough at Oxford's Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences said: 'Our dietary choices have a big impact on the planet. Our results, which use data from over 38,000 farms in over 100 countries, show that high meat diets have the biggest impact for many important environmental indicators, including climate change and biodiversity loss. 'Cutting down the amount of meat and dairy in your diet can make a big difference to your dietary footprint.' Researchers performed computer modelling scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions up to the 22nd century using publicly available data from the UN. Experts found that eliminating all animal agriculture in the next 15 years would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Animal agriculture contributed to global warming because of the methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon emissions of livestock together with their supply chains.
Daily Mail
6 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
Brits should only eat a burger once every 2 WEEKS to save the planet, climate scientist claims
Whether you have yours with pickles, extra cheese or covered in sauce, a burger can be one of the most satisfying meals to tuck into. But people should limit their intake to one every two weeks to help curb climate change, according to an expert. Paul Behrens, a British Academy Global Professor at the University of Oxford, claims Brits must cut down on their meat and dairy intake to help save the planet. He argued that long–term climate change could make it impossible to grow food in a third of current production areas. 'A shift to plant–rich diets in the UK would free an area almost the size of Scotland,' he wrote on The Conversation. Those who love chicken, pork and beef shouldn't worry though – as they'd still be able to enjoy their favourite meals. 'It's not even vegetarian, although it does include a reasonable – and healthier – amount of meat and dairy,' he said. 'For example, it still includes a hamburger every fortnight.' Professor Behrens explained that a shift to plant–rich diets would provide more space to grow crops and help curb rising food prices. He cited research by agricultural economists that found a third of UK food price increases in 2023 resulted from climate change. Other studies also predict significant food price increases every year in the coming decade. Consistent stress on the food system could even cause collapse, according to some experts, prompting civil unrest and riots. 'This trajectory of climate–driven food price hikes – leading to social unrest and political decay – is not inevitable,' Professor Behrens added. 'The scientific consensus shows that the biggest opportunity we have for reducing food's environmental impacts across many countries is increasing the amount of plants we eat and reducing meat and dairy intake.' A previous study, also carried out by academics at the University of Oxford, revealed that eating just 100g meat per day – less than a single burger – creates four times more greenhouse gases compared to a vegan diet. 'Our dietary choices have a big impact on the planet,' said lead author Peter Scarborough, professor of population health at Oxford's Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences. Why is meat bad for the planet? Meat–heavy diets risk the health of our planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Animal agriculture contributes to global warming because of the methane, nitrous oxide and carbon emissions of livestock and their supply chains. The clearing of trees to make way for grazing cattle also reduces carbon sequestration – the process of capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide. 'Our results, which use data from over 38,000 farms in over 100 countries, show that high meat diets have the biggest impact for many important environmental indicators, including climate change and biodiversity loss. 'Cutting down the amount of meat and dairy in your diet can make a big difference to your dietary footprint.' Earlier this year, scientists claimed that Brits will need to curb their meat consumption if the government is to meet its net zero targets. The government's climate advisers said that the average amount of meat eaten by Brits each week equates to roughly eight kebabs, but that this needs to be reduced by a quarter to help meet emissions targets. They also suggested that Brits reduce their dairy consumption by 20 per cent by 2040. Labour's Climate Change Committee said this would allow for farmland to be freed up for increased tree planting to absorb carbon at greater rates. Separately, a report compiled by HelloFresh predicted that Brits will soon be eating the likes of kelp noodle stir fry, soybean spaghetti and dandelion salad in the fight against climate change. All dishes are free from any meat and very little cheese, which studies show are a big drivers of greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide and methane. Meanwhile, a study published in 2022 suggested that a total elimination of meat production around the world by 2037 could slash global emissions by 68 per cent and save Earth from climate change. Researchers performed computer modelling scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions up to the 22nd century using publicly available data from the UN. Eliminating all animal agriculture in the next 15 years would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they found. Animal agriculture contributes to global warming because of the methane, nitrous oxide and carbon emissions of livestock and their supply chains. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FARMING COWS The livestock animals are notorious for creating large amounts of methane, which is a major contributor to global warming. Each of the farm animals produces the equivalent of three tonnes of carbon dioxide per year and the amount of the animals is increasing with the growing need to feed a booming population. Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, trapping 30 times more heat than the same amount of carbon dioxide. Scientists are investigating how feeding them various diets can make cattle more climate-friendly. They believe feeding seaweed to dairy cows may help and are also using a herb-rich foodstuff called the Lindhof sample. Researchers found a cow's methane emissions were reduced by more than 30 per cent when they ate ocean algae. In research conducted by the University of California, in August, small amounts of it were mixed into the animals' feed and sweetened with molasses to disguise the salty taste. As a result, methane emissions dropped by almost a third. 'I was extremely surprised when I saw the results,' said Professor Ermias Kebreab, the animal scientist who led the study. 'I wasn't expecting it to be that dramatic with a small amount of seaweed.' The team now plans to conduct a further six-month study of a seaweed-infused diet in beef cattle, starting this month.
Irish Examiner
17-06-2025
- Science
- Irish Examiner
Scientists accuse Ireland and New Zealand of methane ‘accounting trick'
A group of 26 climate scientists from around the world have penned an open letter to New Zealand and Ireland criticising how the methane greenhouse gas is measured. In Ireland's case, it may be a reaction to the programme for government 2025 commitment to "recognise the distinct characteristics of biogenic methane, as described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and advocate for the accounting of this greenhouse gas to be re-classified at EU and international level". The 26 scientists, in an open letter shared with the London-based Financial Times newspaper, said governments with large livestock sectors, including those of Ireland and New Zealand, are increasingly using a new method for calculating methane's effect on climate change which estimates its contribution to warming based on how emissions are changing relative to a baseline. They specifically accused politicians in New Zealand and Ireland of using an 'accounting trick' to back their sheep and cattle industries. It is believed they are referring to GWP*, a version of the Global Warming Potential formula devised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Other climate researchers, at the University of Oxford, came up with GWP* about six years ago, as a better way for governments to set emissions targets for different greenhouse gases. They said the original GWP100 method did not reliably account for the different impacts of long-lived (such as carbon dioxide) and short-lived (such as methane) gases. They said different lifespans of emissions were crucial to understanding their potential to warm the earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, and even if its emissions ceases, the warming they caused would continues for centuries. But methane does not accumulate, being relatively rapidly removed naturally from the atmosphere. But GWP100 does not allow for this, according to the GWP* camp. Now, a different scientist at the University of Oxford, Paul Behrens, global professor of environmental change at the university, is one of the 26 whose open letter to the Financial Times warned some governments are misapplying GWP*, to justify allowing emissions to remain flat rather than decline. They warned this could set a precedent, allowing other countries to justify minimal reductions in methane emissions, and jeopardising commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement as well as the Global Methane Pledge launched in 2021. Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford University's physics department, and one of the scientists behind GWP*, said governments, not scientists, must decide whether farmers should undo past warming from herd growth. He still supports separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide, saying GWP100 overstates the warming impact of constant methane emissions, and is slow to reflect the impact of emission changes. Read More Rise in low-emission slurry spreading puts Ireland on track for ammonia target
RNZ News
09-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Scientists hit back over Prime Minister's 'worthies' insult
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon makes a tourism funding boost announcement at Auckland Airport. Photo: Marika Khabazi A British scientist says it's concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dismissed him and other climate scientists as "worthies" for raising concerns about plans to lower the country's methane emissions target. Global professor of environmental change at Oxford University Paul Behrens said the government appeared to be trying to deflect attention from questions about the country's agricultural greenhouse gases. "I think the characterisation of climate scientists as 'worthies' reflects a really concerning dismissal of evidence-based policy making," he said. "While the Prime Minister's remarks may aim to deflect criticism of New Zealand's agricultural emissions profile they overlook the clear global consensus that methane reductions are critical to limiting near term warming." Luxon denied he was dismissing science or deflecting attention from this country's farming emissions. "What a load of rubbish, my point was very clear, those scientists can write to leaders of 194 countries before they send it to me," he said. Christopher Luxon says New Zealand is already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". Photo: Gianina Schwanecke / Country Life Though a decision is yet to be revealed, farming groups appear have swayed the government to reduce the current target, which is shrinking emissions somewhere between 24 and 47 per cent by 2050. Several climate experts say the country will set a dangerous precedent for Ireland and other big methane emitters if it aims too low. When 26 international climate change scientists wrote to Luxon accusing him of "ignoring scientific evidence" showing global heating caused by methane has to reduce, the prime minister said it was lovely if "worthies" wanted to write him letters but New Zealand was already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". The scientists were worried that the government might be about to adopt a target that lets heating caused by methane emissions stay the same, rather than turning down the thermostat on the country's cows and sheep. That is because the government asked a scientific panel to tell it how much methane emissions would need to drop to just level off global heating from methane, not reduce it. The answer was 14 to 24 per cent by 2050, about half the current target. The debate is whether that is enough. Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb says yes, because methane is much shorter lived than the other main heating gases, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. One of the members of the government's panel, climate scientist Dave Frame, said New Zealand should lower its target unless other countries commit to bigger cuts to methane from farming than they have currently. He said the planet was not on track to limit heating inside 1.5C hotter than pre-industrial times, despite countries' promises. "If the world really did cut emissions in line with what those kind of guys are talking about, then I think we should absolutely be part of it. "In the absence of that action, I think a 'no additional warming target' is a reasonable fall back position." Victoria University Professor of Climate Change Dave Frame. Photo: RNZ / Chris Bramwell Dr Frame said unlike more profitable dairy farming, sheep and beef farms could not absorb the cost of methane-cutting technologies. Another member of the government's panel atmospheric scientist Laura Revell said it was a tricky call for the government. "Everyone is in agreement - those on the panel, those who wrote the letter - that methane is a greenhouse gas which global action is needed to address," she said. "We know that the consequences of climate change are severe, we are seeing it already and every bit of warming we can avoid helps. "On the other hand, farming is a big part of the New Zealand economy and these emissions are associated with feeding people." The Climate Change Commission said the country should aim for a cut of at least 35 percent, because the costs and impacts of global heating are turning out worse than expected. It said there is no reasonable excuse to do less on methane, under New Zealand's climate commitments. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
09-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Luxon doubles down on calling climate advocates 'worthies', scientists hit back
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon makes a tourism funding boost announcement at Auckland Airport. Photo: Marika Khabazi A British scientist says it's concerning that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dismissed him and other climate scientists as "worthies" for raising concerns about plans to lower the country's methane emissions target. Global professor of environmental change at Oxford University Paul Behrens said the government appeared to be trying to deflect attention from questions about the country's agricultural greenhouse gases. "I think the characterisation of climate scientists as 'worthies' reflects a really concerning dismissal of evidence-based policy making," he said. "While the Prime Minister's remarks may aim to deflect criticism of New Zealand's agricultural emissions profile they overlook the clear global consensus that methane reductions are critical to limiting near term warming." Luxon denied he was dismissing science or deflecting attention from this country's farming emissions. "What a load of rubbish, my point was very clear, those scientists can write to leaders of 194 countries before they send it to me," he said. Christopher Luxon says New Zealand is already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". Photo: Gianina Schwanecke / Country Life Though a decision is yet to be revealed, farming groups appear have swayed the government to reduce the current target, which is shrinking emissions somewhere between 24 and 47 per cent by 2050. Several climate experts say the country will set a dangerous precedent for Ireland and other big methane emitters if it aims too low. When 26 international climate change scientists wrote to Luxon accusing him of "ignoring scientific evidence" showing global heating caused by methane has to reduce, the prime minister said it was lovely if "worthies" wanted to write him letters but New Zealand was already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". The scientists were worried that the government might be about to adopt a target that lets heating caused by methane emissions stay the same, rather than turning down the thermostat on the country's cows and sheep. That is because the government asked a scientific panel to tell it how much methane emissions would need to drop to just level off global heating from methane, not reduce it. The answer was 14 to 24 per cent by 2050, about half the current target. The debate is whether that is enough. Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb says yes, because methane is much shorter lived than the other main heating gases, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. One of the members of the government's panel, climate scientist Dave Frame, said New Zealand should lower its target unless other countries commit to bigger cuts to methane from farming than they have currently. He said the planet was not on track to limit heating inside 1.5C hotter than pre-industrial times, despite countries' promises. "If the world really did cut emissions in line with what those kind of guys are talking about, then I think we should absolutely be part of it. "In the absence of that action, I think a 'no additional warming target' is a reasonable fall back position." Victoria University Professor of Climate Change Dave Frame. Photo: RNZ / Chris Bramwell Dr Frame said unlike more profitable dairy farming, sheep and beef farms could not absorb the cost of methane-cutting technologies. Another member of the government's panel atmospheric scientist Laura Revell said it was a tricky call for the government. "Everyone is in agreement - those on the panel, those who wrote the letter - that methane is a greenhouse gas which global action is needed to address," she said. "We know that the consequences of climate change are severe, we are seeing it already and every bit of warming we can avoid helps. "On the other hand, farming is a big part of the New Zealand economy and these emissions are associated with feeding people." The Climate Change Commission said the country should aim for a cut of at least 35 percent, because the costs and impacts of global heating are turning out worse than expected. It said there is no reasonable excuse to do less on methane, under New Zealand's climate commitments. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
