In contrast, transport makes up just 13% of the world’s greenhouse gas footprint. Moreover, cows turn out methane gas is 23 times as damaging as CO2. Furthermore, livestock rearing takes up 30% of the earth’s surface. In light of this, Johnson suggests that Dr.Pachauri was perhaps right for being anxious about emissions of methane gas from livestock. Johnson affirms that although Dr.Pachauri’s scrutiny was spot on; his proposition to cut down on meat was ridiculous.
Additionally, Johnson (2008) argues that while shunning meat consumption by humans would notably result in decreased methane output; Dr. Pachauri’s recommendation is mistaken as it ignores the pertinent issues at the heart of every environmental problem that presently afflicts the world. Some of these issues include: deforestation, destruction of species, the 1.3 billion people whose livelihoods are reliant on agriculture as well as the persistent human population boom. Currently, the world’s population is about 6.72 billion and anticipated to rise to 9 billion by 2050. Cows are not the problem; people eating the cows are the problem. Additionally, Johnson also reminds the UN of its historic role which entails: campaigning against global overpopulation, family planning championing for female emancipation, and all the real solutions to world’s intolerable and excessive population boom.
In support of Dr. Pachauri’s proposition that meat production puts more GHG’s than the earth’s entire transport network, Smith et al. (2007, p.501) suggests that agriculture discharges considerable amounts of GHG’s (such as methane-CH4, nitrous oxide-N2O and carbondioxide-CO2) into the atmosphere. CH4 is generated when organic matter putrefies in anaerobic circumstances, especially from fermentative digestion by ruminant farm animals, from stockpiled droppings. This confirms that Dr.Pachauri is perhaps right for being anxious about methane gas emissions from livestock. On the