Kaizen | Six Sigma | Lean Management | Training & Consulting | Operational Excellence

Global Leader & Pioneer in Kaizen/Lean/Operational Excellence domain

Lets fight against GLOBAL WARMING

1 Comment

Global warming has been called humankind’s “greatest challenge” and the world’s most grave environmental threat. Many conscientious people are trying to help reduce global warming by driving more fuel-efficient cars and using energy-saving light bulbs. Although this helps, science shows that going vegan is one of the most effective ways to fight global warming.

A recent United Nations report concluded that a global shift toward a vegan diet is extremely important in order to combat the worst effects of climate change. According to the United Nations, raising animals for food is “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”  In addition, the official handbook for Live Earth, the anti–climate change concerts that Al Gore helped organize, says that not eating meat is the “single most effective thing you can do” to reduce your climate change impact.

Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide together cause the vast majority of global warming. Raising animals for food is one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide and the single largest source of both methane and nitrous oxide emissions.




Burning fossil fuels (such as oil and gasoline) releases carbon dioxide, the primary gas responsible for global warming. Producing one calorie from animal protein requires 11 times as much fossil fuel input—releasing 11 times as much carbon dioxide—as does producing a calorie from plant protein.Feeding massive amounts of grain and water to farmed animals and then killing them and processing, transporting, and storing their flesh is extremely energy-intensive. In addition, enormous amounts of carbon dioxide stored in trees are released during the destruction of vast acres of forest to provide pastureland and to grow crops for farmed animals. On top of this, animal manure also releases large quantities of carbon dioxide.

You could exchange your “regular” car for a hybrid Toyota Prius and, by doing so, prevent about 1 ton of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year, but according to the University of Chicago, being vegan is more effective in the fight against global warming; a vegan is responsible for the release of approximately 1.5 fewer tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year than is a meat-eater.

A German study conducted in 2008 concluded that a meat-eater’s diet is responsible for more than seven times as much greenhouse gas emissions as a vegan’s diet. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N.’s Nobel Prize–winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and a vegetarian himself), urges people to “please eat less meat—meat is a very carbon-intensive commodity.”




The billions of chickensturkeyspigs, and cows who are crammed into factory farms each year in the U.S. produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with feces that they excrete. Scientists report that every pound of methane is more than 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide is at trapping heat in our atmosphere. The EPA shows that animal agriculture is the single largest source of methane emissions in the U.S.




Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions. (Use the N-Calculator to calculate your nitrogen footprint and to see how you could lower your nitrogen usage)…source: http://www.peta.org


…..doing our bit Kaizen Institute India has recently launched a new body of knowledge (BOK) called “TEM” (Total Environment Management). 




Author: Kaizen Institute - India!

Kaizen Institute – India is part of the Global Kaizen Institute operations. Kaizen Institute was established by Sensei Masaaki Imai, the GURU of Kaizen. He wrote the 1st book 28 yrs ago and that is when it all started . We operate in 30+ countries today and have over 400+ coaches helping more then 600 organizations Learn, Apply, Sustain – Kaizen/ Operational Excellence. In India we have two physical offices – Pune & Ahmedabad and 27 coaches in all.

One thought on “Lets fight against GLOBAL WARMING


    First a disclaimer. I’m a 68 year old engineer by degree. I have no climate training. I do, however, have a pretty decent logical mind, and I read the scientific data, as presented in magazines, on line, and on the science documentaries.

    Scientific American’s recent article titled “Creation, Evolution and Indisputable Facts” by Jack Tanenbaum, did an excellent job of comparing the rigors of the scientific method versus the approach taken by fundamental creationists.
    “Creationists begin with the answers and work to prove that those answers are right.” He went on to say “They reject science only if it conflicts with their beliefs.”

    The “religion” of Man-Made GLOBAL WARMING has many of the attributes mentioned in your article regarding religion.
    I get every indication that many of the “studies” found in the literature have begun with the “answer” and backed the data into agreement. I have listed a few of my findings and related questions. I hope someone will take a moment to answer them.

    1. A recent article in Scientific American discussed the results of a ten year study on grasses and woody plants, using the MMGW predicted increases in CO2 and their predicted warmer temperatures. They found a consistent increase in plant productivity of 23%, plus an extended growing period of several weeks.
    Wouldn’t this 23% increase in plant productivity (growth of leaves, fruit, and stems) also sequester a substantial increase in carbon? (I believe it was plants that sequestered the atmospheric carbon that composes our current supply of coal, oil, and natural gas). There was no mention of this aspect in the article.
    Nor did the article mention the potential impact on world hunger!
    They concluded that it could be bad for people with allergies due to the increased pollen!
    Did they mention what the extended growing period could do for the huge “bread basket” regions like the northern Great Plains and Siberia? NOT A WORD!
    Instead, they said it could cause an increase in poison ivy!
    (You just can’t make this stuff up!)
    They did, however, conclude with the expected “We need more research” recommendation. No shocker there!
    2. Several noted scientific journals have attributed the ice age pattern of the last 400,000 years as being caused by the earth’s “orbit, tilt, and wobble.”
    Assuming that the earth still orbits, tilts and wobbles, when, exactly, does the scientific community expect the next ice age?
    And why is there such a dearth of study on this critical parameter? It sure seems like 1,000 ft of ice over the Western world would be worthy of contemplation!
    3. I recently saw an article stating that new data showed that a rapid and dramatic increase in temperature and sea levels occurred near the end of the Eemian, the last interglacial period.
    Yet, there were no coal burning power plants or SUV’s, and, the CO2 levels were lower than today.
    Did the scientific journal address the obvious question as to what caused it? NO. Instead, it discussed how this natural temperature increase would worsen the MMGW!
    4. And, when the data fails to confirm the projections, the name is changed from “Man Made Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.
    If there is one thing that I, and pretty much everyone else, feel comfortable predicting, it is CLIMATE CHANGE. The climate has changed in the past and it will change in the future, with or without human intervention.
    5. My research shows that the current average world temperature is ~14.2 degrees C
    6. I have read several articles of late quoting the frightening “dramatic temperature rise” since 1850.
    WHY 1850? It isn’t 100 years ago. It isn’t 150 years ago. So I did a little research on my own:
    NASA defines the Little Ice Age as ending with the severe cold spell of 1850 (I’m sure it is pure coincidence).
    Are we to believe that the world would be better off had the temperature stayed at the 1850 (Little Ice Age) level?
    7. Temperature during the last cold snap of the Little Ice Age (1850) is purported to have been 13.4 degrees C. Therefore the total delta T, over a 160 year period = 0.8 degrees C! (I have to wonder what my statistics professor would say about the significance of this delta given the accuracy and variability of the data).
    In relation to a more relevant measure, i.e. degrees Kelvin, the temperature changed from 286.4 degrees K to 287.2 degrees K, or a grand total of 0.28% over the past 160 years, …And this is starting from the little Ice Age!
    Once again, one has to question the statistical significance of these numbers.
    8. And then there is the obvious question of Who, How, Where, When, and How Often were the “Global” average temperature readings taken in the 1800’s? Interestingly, one NEVER sees any information as to how this global year long average temperature was attained, nor, how it was measured with such an amazing amount of precision!
    In 1850, vast portions of the world had still barely been visited by westerners. And even with today’s satellites, international bodies, et al, we still have disagreement with the absolutes.
    9. Two thirds of the earth is covered by oceans. How were these temperatures taken? Where? How often? Times of day. El Nino? La Nina?
    At what elevation (above the surface of the water)?
    10. I assume the quantity of readings from remote areas differed substantially from those attained in the populated areas. How were these “averaged” to get a global average? How was the time of day variability compensated for? How many temperature readings were taken from the Arctic / Antarctic? Did they cover all seasons?
    As my professors used to say: “Show your work.”
    11. I have also read that many scientists think that the Little Ice Age may have been a “Northern Hemisphere only” anomaly.
    So what does that say about our accuracy of the “global temperature” reading of 162 years ago?
    12. And then there are these articles from one single edition of national Geographic: October, 2007.
    One article talks about drastic measures required to stem the MMGW crisis, and recommends that we use 1/6 of the world’s crop lands to raise bio-fuels.
    The next article says (and I quote) “Producing corn ethanol consumes just about as much fossil fuel as the ethanol itself replaces” And, “Rising (corn) prices … will push farmers to plow up some 35 million acres of marginal farmland now set aside for soil and wildlife conservation, potentially releasing even more carbon bound in the fallow fields.”
    They didn’t even mention the effect on basic food prices and the disproportionate impact on the poor.
    Read a little further and the article discusses the rainforest being consumed for sugar cane production in Brazil (used to make bio-fuels). It further mentions that they typically first burn the cane fields before re-planting (twice a year). Neither action sounds very environmentally friendly to me
    13. Similarly, I see all sorts of articles praising “alternate energy sources” like wind and solar.
    While I am all for further development of such (if privately funded), NO ONE discusses the lack of any viable electrical energy storage capability. And, no one mentions the fact that either 1) your lights go out at night and/or when the wind stops blowing, or 2) you’ll need all of those nasty fossil fuel power plants running on standby (~ 50% of full capacity) at all times. And note that during the periods that the electrical demand is being filled by solar/wind, all of the surplus electricity produced by the fossil fuel plants is producing nothing but HEAT!
    14. Cherry Picking the Data: Exceptional cold? Abnormal blizzard? Oh, that’s just weather, not climate change. However, a drought, hurricane Sandy, local heat wave; That’s always attributable to MMGW.
    15. A recent report shows that the global temperature has not increased at all over the past 16 years. Why?
    16. Another attribute of a religion vs. science is the reluctance to investigate any counter evidence to the widely held beliefs. I have listed but a few of this evidence above. Where is the scientific investigation?

    These are NOT trivial questions.

    Maybe it’s just me, but it sure seems like these, and other similar questions, would be important for science to ponder, particularly before recommending the disruption of the entire world economy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s