"Would you give up meat to save the earth?" is the title of a recent article by Sarah Benson in Kansas City.com. You might wonder how in the world we ever reached the point where a question like that could be asked anywhere, let alone in Kansas City.

If you read the article, you will find that it is balanced and isn't really anti-meat. It does, however, lay out the green arguments against eating meat and the author provides some insight into the agenda that is being promoted by some environmentalists. According to the article, meat is being set up "to be the next big environmental no-no".  It explains why some believe that "eating meat, specifically beef, is bad for the environment". How bad?  According to the article, "Cows are worse than cars. (The global livestock sector generates 18 percent of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions - more than transportation - according to a 2006 study by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.)".

The environmental argument against meat is based on global warming theories and political and social agendas related to global warming. The recent "Climategate" scandal has raised questions about the scientific validity of global warming, especially the role of man in causing climate change. The global climate is always changing and always has been changing.  Global climate change occurred long before human beings were even on this planet.
 The Pew Research Center published a survey in October suggesting that the number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence the earth is warming because of human activity is down from 48% in April, 2008 to 36% in October, 2009. That number will certainly be lower today after the questions raised by the Climategate email scandal.

One of the positive outcomes of the scandal is that one of the leading climate change research organizations (The Met Office in the UK) plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails (Climategate).
Hopefully, an independent study of global warming will include all legitimate scientific inputs. For example, there is evidence that the melting of the Arctic ice cap may be due to underground volcanic activity.

The issue of climate change is politically divisive; Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently likened anyone who doesn't believe in global warming to those who believed the world is flat, calling them "Flat earth climate change skeptics".  A balanced scientific evaluation should help put the issue into better perspective and separate climate change from politics and social engineering agendas. Clearly, the issue of global warming needs to be depoliticized and brought back into the realm of sound science. Otherwise, there is a potential that fears about global warming will allow world government control over every aspect of our businesses and our lives. There is a real danger that the quality of life we have worked so hard to achieve will be unnecessarily sacrificed.

Regarding meat consumption and the environment, livestock producers will benefit from continued efforts to improve sustainability. The beef industry especially needs to improve its image to consumers. Beef producers have a great story to tell. They have been raising cattle in harmony with the environment from the beginning. Somehow, they need to get that message to consumers. Otherwise, meat in general and beef in particular will end up being the next "big environmental no-no".