lifestyle

Planning a BBQ? Not if you want to save the planet

15 Comments
By Thin Lei Win

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters Foundation

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

15 Comments
Login to comment

Planning a BBQ? Not if you want to save the planet

Save the planet? Fat chance.

Yeah, cancel the BBQ, stay home and shop on the internet for hours cuz you can't decide between the 50 different types of 1 liter sports bottles on sale.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

BBQs?! What a sensational headline. Some people eat McDonald's every week. There are people that eat McDonald's every day. Ever seen their sign in the USA? BILLIONS served.

I don't disagree that we need to consume less meat. This is a must. But talking about BBQs? How about lab meat, veggie burgers, halving your fast food outings.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

This is too much bs, sorry. Now we can't have an outdoor bbq because the Earth will suffer. So it's fine for corporations to pump pollutants into the air 24/7, but we can't enjoy 60-120 mins of grilling meats/veggies, um, ok :/

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Rising temperatures will help take care of this BBQ problem rather quickly, I think.

I doubt too many people will be excited to grill outside in the expected 110 F heat indices which are expected to blanket much of the central and eastern US this weekend.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Agriculture accounts for 11% of planet-heating global emissions, according to the United Nations, most of which comes from gases emitted by livestock during digestion and in manure.

I still don't get the focus on cattle flatulence. Assuming the food cattle eat is originally from natural sources, is it not carbon neutral? I can understand the felling of forests to make way for agricultural land as a problem, and also the use of additional resources for food processing and transportation. But does that not also apply to non-animal based food production?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I see, it's not fracking, oil drilling, the tons of plastic bottles in the ocean, or the yearly iphone update with non user replaceable batteries that are also non recyclable... It's eating meat. Thanks for the heads up. I'll go back to enjoying my bbq now.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Assuming the food cattle eat is originally from natural sources, is it not carbon neutral?

Why are you assuming a SF scenario ? It's known that most cattle for meat is fed. Pasture cattle (like Heidi in Swiss Alps), it is just enough for 5 to 10% of the current demand, and that can't be extended. Most of cattle is fed by imported grains/soy and/or meat or fish powder, and raised in intensive meat factories. All the beef produced in Japan is like that. It's insane to continue and even increase production.

I can understand the felling of forests to make way for agricultural land as a problem, and also the use of additional resources for food processing and transportation. But does that not also apply to non-animal based food production?

You don't read about "yakko tofu, houmous, dal , frijoles.... threatening the climate" because they pollute next to nothing compared to a triply packaged cheeseburger. Just cows (for meat and dairy) currently cause 1/2 of carbon emission from global food production. It's measured in "kg" of carbon to obtain 1 kg of meat/food . Beef : 27Kg. Pork 12kg. Chicken 7kg... and for lentils, less than 1 kg.

http://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html

But talking about BBQs? 

Clickbait title. If people ate beef only at occasional BBQ parties, its production would not cause problems.

I see, it's not fracking,...

Burnt meat doesn't seem to increase reading ability. It's written nowhere that heating/cooling your house and workplace, your fast food packages, your car, your phone... etc, don't also pollute.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Meat sizzling on the barbecue might be synonymous with summer, but consumers should re-think their menus to save the planet, a U.S.-based research group says. If the biggest beef and lamb consumers reduced their weekly intake to 1.5 burgers by 2050, it could cut greenhouse gas emissions and save forests from becoming farmland, the World Resources Institute (WRI) said.

Yet another one of life's small pleasures being turned into something taboo to give people a guilt complex. I just checked World Resources Institute's website. Some of its major donors ($750,000 or more) include Google Inc, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Shell Foundation, The World Bank. In other words, Globalist organisations. Going by their track records I don't think they're interested in saving the planet so much as controlling and restricting what people can do.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Agriculture accounts for 11% of planet-heating global emissions, according to the United Nations, most of which comes from gases emitted by livestock during digestion and in manure.

Cows and sheep have probably been around for as long as humans and way before any motor vehicle. Maybe the global warming thing is a natural cycle and not as bad as it's being made out to be ...

Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan. [...] Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,” the study said, adding that “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” in the models.

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. [..] This has been (corroborated) by a team at Kobe University in Japan

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice

Did anyone see the above on NHK or any other large corporate media?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You don't read about "yakko tofu, houmous, dal , frijoles.... threatening the climate" because they pollute next to nothing compared to a triply packaged cheeseburger.

Sorry, coskuri, that doesn't really answer my naive question.

On the the path to human consumption, all kinds of processes are involved. I can buy houmous or tofu in my supermarket, and they are generally packaged in plastic or some other material that has gone through an industrial process. My original question was basically whether it matters that cattle flatulate. When producing tofu, what happens to the residual material from soy plants? If it is composted, that will be the equivalent of cattle farting. Are the big questions not the use of fossil fuels in the food production process and the removal of existing carbon sinks to aid food production?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Burning Bush

Reminds me of how the Brahmans controlled India.

Did the Brahmins control India, or the Kshatriya ... or the Panchayats?

Did the Brahmins actually ever control all of India?

Weren't the Brahmins actually the vegetarians while the lower classes were defined as such by the impurity of their animal husbandry, slaughter and consumption of meat?

Accepting that the Brahmins were actually the vegetarians, what gave them the superior mental clarity to rule over the armed Kshatriya warrior class?

What did Brahmins have to do with anyway (The first empire of Ashoka's in which India was largely conquered and united, and vegetarianism and animal welfare extended fairly universally, was Buddhist not Hindu)?

Do you have any evidence to prove your average BBQ user is more intelligent that your average Indian Brahmin, because all the anecodotal evidence I have seen is that the more prone to having BBQs one is, the lower in intelligence the parties are?

If meat eaters are so smart, how come they are destroying the planet to feed their addiction?

You're spouting ridiculous nonsense. I'd say there's a strong argument to suggest meat eating clouds and dulls the mind to the point where it can't fully comprehend the damage the industry is doing to the planet.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This article missed 2 important points.

All the charcoal sold in Japan comes straight from Burma, Indonnesian or Malaysia - irresplacable rainforests! - check the boxes.

And BBQ equipment is now basically viewed as disposable - and create massive amounts of garbage left behind every weekend and on every beach and river bank in the county.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@ifd66

Total BS. I've personally visited numerous sustainable charcoal makers, using local wood, all over Japan. I suggest you try expanding your horizons by doing so too. They are fascinating and make some very high quality charcoal, like binchō-tan.

Do you want to give us a verifiable statistic or source for your claim of "all" ?

I don't agree with Western style BBQs, they are total excess, but there's nothing like grilling some shiitake or mochi on your hibachi stove as you keep warm in winter, and it's a sustainable fuel.

I'm surprised by your claims of mess, I've always been impressed at how responsible people are at cleaning up after.

The amount of meat being burned at cherry blosson parties is getting a bit much though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites