If you really care about the climate crisis, you should go vegetarian

This column is an opinion by Nicholas Read, a former journalist and journalism instructor in Vancouver. For more information about CBC's Opinion section, please see the FAQ.

I stopped eating meat 35 Earth Days ago because someone called me a hypocrite. 

I was at a dinner party selling raffle tickets for an organization that protected fur-bearing animals, but a fellow guest refused to buy one.

He asked me why I was raising money to protect animals with fur on their backs just as I was sitting down to a meal of turkey, ham or whatever dead animal was on offer that night. Wasn't that hypocritical? Needless to say, I was furious. Privately furious, but furious. And I remained furious for three more days until even I had to admit that he was right and I was wrong. So good-bye meat. Farewell fish. And eventually so long dairy, too. 

Our planet is changing. So is our journalism. This story is part of a CBC News initiative entitled "Our Changing Planet" to show and explain the effects of climate change. Keep up with the latest news on our Climate and Environment page.

My decision to change my diet was based entirely on my fondness for animals. When people spoke about climate change 35 years ago, I wasn't listening. No one was. Now we all know what a carbon footprint is, and some of us are determined to minimize ours. What hasn't changed, however, is how little we're told about meat's impact on that footprint. 

That could be because measuring how much damage it does depends on your source. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization says meat and dairy production is directly responsible for 14.5 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases. The David Suzuki Foundation puts it at 18 per cent. While a recent University of Illinois study blames agriculture for 35 per cent, with meat accounting for the lion's share.

Regardless, it's bad. Yet the mention of meat in most climate change debates is still as rare as — what else? — hen's teeth.

To be fair, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has signalled diet once or twice in its directives. The problem is that these signals are always framed as suggestions. As something you may — or may not — wish to consider. 

According to the news agency Reuters, this year's IPCC report was primed to finally recommend that people reduce their intake of meat and switch to plant-based alternatives instead. But when the final draft was released, it had been watered down to the advisory equivalent of non-alcohol beer. It spoke of "balanced diets that include sustainably produced animal products alongside plants like grains and legumes." Another powderpuff punch. 

Asked to explain the dilution, report contributor Joanna House would only say that dietary change is complex. "If meat is produced sustainably, it can be low carbon and support soil carbon and nutrients," she said, inadvertently giving voice to the term, mealy-mouthed. 

However, and again to be fair, what she said wasn't unusual. Get out of your car and onto public transit. Trade in your gas guzzler for an EV. Heat your house with electricity instead of gas. We hear these injunctions all the time. The government will even contribute to that EV purchase. But when was the last time you heard federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault urge you to serve veggie burgers at your next barbecue? And despite his own foundation's figures, even David Suzuki eats meat. And if that makes him a hypocrite, so be it, he said when I asked.  

I think it's time someone found out why this is so. To determine why everyone in any kind of authority — scientific or governmental — either refuses to mention meat's role in climate change or tiptoes around it so gingerly. Why won't these people — the UN and the IPCC, for example — state plainly and straightforwardly that if you really care about the climate crisis and want to do something about it, you should go veg? 

Yes, agriculture lobbyists are tremendously powerful, but we are talking about the fate of the planet. So surely a soupçon of perspective is due.