It’s upsetting and a bit disturbing that a NY Times “Green blogger” has perpetuated a claim from the Center for Consumer Freedom that there is no strong connection between meat and global warming.
The recent NY Times article titled “Meat & Climate: The Debate Continues” (which I refuse to link to) cites a press release from the CCF (a.k.a a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries) which used an EPA figure estimating that only 6% of US greenhouse gases are caused by agriculture production, including meat. They used this figure to argue that there is no significant connection between meat and global warming. The EPA figure stands in stark contrast to the 2006 UN FAO report (Livestock’s Longshadow) which attributes 18% of global greenhouse gases to livestock production. Considering how much meat Americans consume, I find it hard to believe that the US produces far less GHG relative to other countries.
If you read the first paragraph of the study, you would learn that the EPA figure omits the emissions from CO2 and land-use changes. In contrast, the 2006 UN FAO study includes CO2, as well as methane and other greenhouse gases as a result of the entire livestock production process.
EPA on Agriculture Emissions in 2006:
“Agricultural activities contribute directly to emissions of greenhouse gases through a variety of processes. This chapter provides an assessment of non-carbon-dioxide emissions from the following source categories: enteric fermentation in domestic livestock, livestock manure management, rice cultivation, agricultural soil management, and field burning of agricultural residues (see Figure 6-1). Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and removals from agriculture-related land-use activities, such as conversion of grassland to cultivated land, are presented in the Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry chapter. CO2 emissions from on-farm energy use are accounted for in the Energy chapter.”
…Scientists usually tie their estimates of the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming to sources such as land use changes, agriculture (including livestock) and transportation. The authors of Livestock’s long shadow took a different approach, aggregating emissions throughout the livestock commodity chain – from feed production (which includes chemical fertilizer production, deforestation for pasture and feed crops, and pasture degradation), through animal production (including enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide emissions from manure) to the carbon dioxide emitted during processing and transportation of animal products.
Why the EPA chose to ignore the impact of CO2 and US land-use changes, is a puzzle to address. As the UN report shows, land-use is a major reason why GHG from livestock is high. When one looks at the example of deforestation of the Amazon (80% of which is attributed to livestock), it’s not hard to see why global land-use, and the whole livestock commodity chain should be a concern.
Another commenter of the Times article adds “CCF had to go as far as misrepresenting a Bush era EPA report, that were often lower bounds or distortions of staff reports.”
Note that only 6% of **US** GHG emissions are from the agricultural sector. This figure most likely does not factor in the emissions from Brazil and other nations that are driven by American consumers.
The US notoriously uses a disproportionate amount of energy compared to the rest of the world (even other Northern nations), so it would not be surprising if agricultural emissions were much less than 18%. Think about all the large homes to heat and air condition as well as jet planes to fly on to take 1-2 vacations a year–a luxury not affordable to many people in other parts of the world.
However, I recall that Eshel U. Chicago diet-climate study speculated that Americans could reduce their carbon-equivalent footprint by 6% if they adopted a vegan diet. So perhaps almost all of the agricultural emissions produced by the US could be eliminated by a vegan diet.
Adam, thanks for that great comment! I should have emphasized more, that the study only emphasizes US-based emissions and that the livestock industry is global in nature, so it’s wrong-headed to think that you can evaluate GHG emissions from meat based on what goes on in your country alone.
You also bring up a great point on US energy use. Like you say, the US uses more CO2 per person than any other country. So the actual output of livestock’s GHG, shouldn’t be judged by % alone, when US energy use is higher on average.
The many studies that link meat and global warming also should be emphasized. They account for the whole animal agriculture process and measure GHG impact in concrete values.
You nailed it – you tore up the CCF’s argument in fact. I should bring up your comments on my next post
This post merely was making the argument that land-use shouldn’t be discounted as part of the animal agriculture process, when people are taking measures such as deforesting the Amazon.
It makes one think about how desperate farmers elsewhere (and in the US) are to obtain land for cattle grazing, and to grow crops for cattle. I notice that there seems to be a debate (or is there really?) on whether most of that land can grow crops suitable for human consumption or not. Worth investing a bit.
[...] Global Warming: Is There Really a Debate? July 15, 2009, 10:00 am Filed under: Uncategorized Meat and Global Warming: Is There Really a Debate?: [...]