Livestock Responsible for 51% of Emissions, Says Worldwatch Institute
Published October 21, 2009 @ 12:13AM PT
A new report called "Livestock and Climate Change" identifies livestock as the source of an astronomical 51 percent of human-created greenhouse gas emissions.
Let me say that again: 51 percent. What happened to that manageable number—18 percent—people usually throw around? And who exactly is making these crazy assertions?
The report appears in the November/December issue of Worldwatch Magazine, a publication of Worldwatch Institute, a reputable environmental think tank based in Washington, DC. Its authors are Robert Goodland, former lead environmental adviser at the World Bank Group, and Jeff Anhang, research officer and environmental specialist at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation.
They explain that the 18 percent number you always hear was published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which identified 7,516 million tons of CO2e per year to be attributable to livestock.
FAO came up with this number by adding up the emissions generated by clearing land to graze livestock and grow feed, by raising the livestock and by getting the livestock to the consumer. The study's authors explain that the initial figure undercounts or overlooks 25,048 million tons of CO2e associated with livestock.
According to the report's authors, the original FAO number did not account for important realities of modern meat production such as cows' breathing, the clearcutting of Amazon rainforest for grazing or the entirety of the marine products industry (apparently, up to half of marine organisms caught go to livestock; who knew?).
The authors' analysis reveals that livestock are actually responsible for 32,564 million tons of CO2e, which amounts to 51 percent of total emissions attributable to human activity.
Can it be true? The authors seems to be meticulous, even noting that preparing meat requires longer, hotter cooking, which, in the developing world at least, means burning more charcoal, which puts extra pressure on forests.
But it's still hard to swallow that such a vast amount of greenhouse gases might originate in this one industry. It's even harder to believe their solution is going to take off; they advocate entirely replacing the meat and dairy industries with plant-based substitutes such as soy milk and seitan burgers.
Will Tofurky save us all?
Photo courtesy of Royalty-free image collection on flickr
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (13)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Katherine Gustafson is a freelance writer and editor with a background in international nonprofit organizations. Her articles, essays, and stories have been published in numerous magazines, newspapers, books, and Websites.
Top Sustainable Food Actions
-
-
Pass the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
283 People
-
Pass the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
-
FWIW, this was also discussed on the animal rights blog yesterday afternoon: http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/worldwatch_livestock_account_for_51_greenhouse_gases_meat_and_dairy_must_be_replaced
I think it's worth pointing out, as mentioned in that post, that the authors don't just make the recommendation and move along; a large portion of the article is devoted to exploring just how this transition would and could work and what the multiple benefits would be.
And the figure really isn't that hard to swallow when you consider all the figures the researchers provide and the fact that we're breeding and using (and of course, ultimately killing) no small number of animals; we're talking about several tens of billions of land animals each year alone (i.e., not even counting all the billions of aquatic animals as well).
I'd also like to head off some expected adverse reactions to the proposal of meat and dairy analogs as a solution here. I think we all know that processed foods are not and should not be the ultimate goal as a primary food source, but using these foods as a transition away from animal-based foods can be helpful for a number of people. I wrote about this over at the AR post as well: http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/worldwatch_livestock_account_for_51_greenhouse_gases_meat_and_dairy_must_be_replaced
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 10/21/2009 @ 05:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As a vegan with a degree in environmental policy, I feel that I am an unlikely candidate to say that I find these numbers HIGHLY questionable, and I would advise all animal advocates and environmentalists to be cautious when spouting off this new sketchy figure.
There is absolutely no doubt that switching to a vegan diet is the simpliest and most direct way to save the earth via food choices, BUT this report pitts it as a false choice between taking drastic steps in industrial and residential power sectors OR switching to vegetarian/vegan diets. We need both, equally quickly and with an equal force.
Posted by Michael A. Weber on 10/21/2009 @ 07:15AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This does seem high, but I also know people are addicted to their meat. It's not that hard to give up meat. I didn't say totally, but cutting back is easy, I've done it. People, if you have children I'd think you'd want to do what you can to make sure they have a world to live on when they grow up! ...or maybe you just don't care...
Posted by Graham Smith on 10/21/2009 @ 12:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As my Grandfather used to say, "there are lies, Damn lies, and statistics." Without the raw data I could make the case that butterfly farts can cure cancer... I suspect much the same principal is at work here, especially when you figure in the fact that EVERY living organism that breathes oxygen and gives off C02 is now a "polluter".
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/21/2009 @ 05:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Cows' breathing? I'm no scientician, but isn't that part of the carbon cycle, and therefore shouldn't be included in one of these analyses.
I wonder how true this study is. Either way, meat-eating needs to be severely reduced.
Posted by Ross L. on 10/21/2009 @ 05:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Seth and Ross, let's hear your objections. If you are two different people it's funny that you both brought up respiration. Even funnier that that's the first topic the authors explain in detail - you know, if you'd, like, read the report. So what's your objection to their explanation of this?
Posted by Vance Lehmkuhl on 10/22/2009 @ 10:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
First off I'm not inclined to put much stock in anything that isn't randomized, peer reviewed, and impartial. The author of this piece doesn't even include a works cited section. I know my statistics and I know when someone is trying to present numbers to make their point of view look correct. Doing so by not presenting any of the source data makes the report little more than a joke.
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/22/2009 @ 02:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What makes you think the study isn't impartial? I've seen absolutely no indication that it isn't or that the authors have any personal stake in what they concluded -- beyond, you know, not wanting the planet to fall apart.
And there is a complete Sources & Resources page, complete with FAQ, for the article here: http://www.worldwatch.org/ww/livestock
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 10/22/2009 @ 02:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My objection is that breathing doesn't contribute to global warming. The CO2 you breathe out (or anything breathes out) is part of the carbon cycle, which means that it doesn't add or take out CO2 from the atmosphere.
Posted by Ross L. on 10/25/2009 @ 02:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I could believe that number, but I do find it highly suspenct that "they advocate entirely replacing the meat and dairy industries with plant-based substitutes such as soy milk and seitan burgers."
Vast fields of soy and wheat wouldn't improve a damn thing... Anyone seriously looking at this issue should know that.
Posted by Kristen Ridley on 10/23/2009 @ 06:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I would venture a guess that these high numbers would be easy to find at a corporate feed lot. There's mounting evidence that the cow is not the problem, but rather the diets humans are forcing on the cows.
http://www.gourmet.com/foodpolitics/2009/09/the-conscientious-carnivore
Nature didn't design cows to eat grains. A cow's rumen should be an alkaline environment. When fed grains, the rumen becomes acidic as the grains ferment. That's why the cattle industry is one of the largest antacid purchasers in the country. It's that very same process in the cow's rumen that causes all the obnoxious gas.
Plus, the process of growing corn fro cows is less environmentally sound than allowing cows to eat grass.
http://simplesteps.org/food/eating-well/top-10-reasons-eat-grass-fed-meat#pagination-top
It's not the cows. It's the modern farming techniques. We need to shift back to crop and animal rotation, multiple crops planted strategically both time wise and location wise, and away from mono culture agriculture where pesticides and drugs are used to "fix" all the problems the techniques are creating.
Let's also not forget one of the biggest contributors to these problems in the U.S. - food industry subsidies. If the subsidies went away, many of these problems would cure themselves by allowing the market demand to dictate which food products would be grown. Right now, organic produce is yielding nice profits for farmers around the world.
Posted by Mark R on 10/26/2009 @ 07:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unfortunately, I just reviewed the report in detail and it is full of errors and damages the credibility of food and climate researchers.
1. The authors are right that the FAO does not include livestock breathing emissions in GHG emissions. But when the authors add livestock breathing emissions back into total emissions, they don’t add human breathing emissions back in. So when they conclude that livestock emissions are 51% of anthropogenic emissions, they are conveniently neglecting another major source, thereby incorrectly inflating the proportion that comes from livestock.
2. Next the authors tackle land use. They acknowledge that the FAO counts emissions from converting land from forest to livestock use, but say the estimate is too low because it doesn’t count emissions from all the pre-existing land used to support livestock, which could instead be used to grow climate-friendly biofuels. That’s like saying we should count my bathroom floor as a GHG emitter, because I’m not currently growing biofuels on it.
3. The authors insist that we have to look at livestock methane emissions on a shorter timeframe than the FAO does, which is arguable. But even if you agree, they do not recalibrate methane emissions from non-livestock sources as they do for livestock, saying it requires “further work.” So, just as they did with livestock breathing emissions, they inflate livestock methane emissons but conveniently neglect to inflate non-livestock methane emissions. Then of course the percent of emissions from livestock looks astronomical.
There are other problems too; for my whole analysis see my blog post at http://eatinganimals.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/climate-chicanery/
Posted by Angelique Chao on 10/30/2009 @ 04:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We can prove anything to continue our sinful activity.
Posted by sridhar das on 11/08/2009 @ 03:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.