From the meatheads at the Carnegie Institution
Climate: Meat turns up the heat
Stanford, CA—Eating meat contributes to climate change, due to greenhouse gasses emitted by livestock. New research finds that livestock emissions are on the rise and that beef cattle are responsible for far more greenhouse gas emissions than other types of animals. It is published by Climactic Change.
Carbon dioxide is the most-prevalent gas when it comes to climate change. It is released by vehicles, industry, and forest removal and comprises the greatest portion of greenhouse gas totals. But methane and nitrous oxide are also greenhouse gasses and account for approximately 28 percent of global warming activity.
Methane and nitrous oxide are released, in part, by livestock. Animals release methane as a result of microorganisms that are involved in their digestive processes and nitrous oxide from decomposing manure. These two gasses are responsible for a quarter of these non-carbon dioxide gas emissions and 9 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions overall.
The research team, including Dario Caro, formerly of Carnegie and now at the University of Siena in Italy, and Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira, estimated the greenhouse gas emissions related to livestock in 237 countries over a nearly half a century and found that livestock emissions increased by 51 percent over this period.
They found a stark difference between livestock-related emissions in the developing world, which accounts for most of this increase, and that released by developed countries. This is expected to increase further going forward, as demand for meat, dairy products, and eggs is predicted by some scientists to double by 2050. By contrast, developed countries reached maximum livestock emissions in the 1970s and have been in decline since that time.
“The developing world is getting better at reducing greenhouse emissions caused by each animal, but this improvement is not keeping up with the increasing demand for meat,” said Caro. “As a result, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock keep going up and up in much of the developing world.”
Breaking it down by animal, beef and dairy cattle comprised 74 percent of livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions, 54 percent coming from beef cattle and 17 percent from dairy cattle. Part of this is due to the abundance of cows, but it is also because cattle emit greater quantities of methane and nitrous oxide than other animals. Sheep comprised 9 percent, buffalo 7 percent, pigs 5 percent, and goats 4 percent.
“That tasty hamburger is the real culprit,” Caldeira said. “It might be better for the environment if we all became vegetarians, but a lot of improvement could come from eating pork or chicken instead of beef.”
The Carnegie Institution for Science is a private, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., with six research departments throughout the U.S. Since its founding in 1902, the Carnegie Institution has been a pioneering force in basic scientific research. Carnegie scientists are leaders in plant biology, developmental biology, astronomy, materials science, global ecology, and Earth and planetary science.
[ADDENDUM]: My thanks to Anthony for pointing out this study. This might be a good time to recommend to people my previous posts on the relationship of plants and animals in the planetary food systems:
Animal, Vegetable, or E.O. Wilson
Finally, one of the larger methane sources on the planet, ironically, is … rice paddies. Lots and lots of organic materials decaying underwater, someone needs to put an end to that terrible practice immediately …
w.
And then, they came for the cows…
=======================================================================
Here’s a little something to chew on.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3098/pdf/2009-3098.pdf
(I tried to paste an excerpt that said livestock water usage was 3% but each word came out as a separate line)
Each methane molecule contains one carbon atom which started out in a carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere. The authors of this study need to do a little remedial work. Cows don’t manufacture carbon atoms out of nothing. And water is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas.
I prefer to eat vegetarian (of the herbivore kind).
Mike M says:
July 21, 2014 at 2:46 pm
and
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm
—————————————————————————————————————————I I was thinking not about me being able to find the food but rather that I would become the food. If you can’t see it till it’s too late, then it’s too late.
And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest.
And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear.
And terror possesed me then.
And I begged,
“Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?”
And the angel said unto me,
“These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust.”
Tool – Discustipated
I switched from burgers to cabbage yesterday. Despite complaints from my wife and dog, I did manage three bars of “Yankee Doodle”.
cwon14 says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Of course the papers claim are rubbish as it assumes a fact not in evidence, an unquantified claim regarding “greenhouse” gasses only assumed but never empirically defined.
What does not in evidence specifically mean in this context?
By quantified, do you mean proof of the impossible, not related to the basic and only real issue: which is, what will the affect of a huge geological external spike in total long lived [gg] ultimately be on long term climate, relative to what we have evolved under and adapted to?
According to the Science Daily article:
Over 800,000 years, methane levels never went above 700ppb. By 1950 they were at 1100. While they’ve been relatively flat the last several years, they are still extremely high (methane breaks down into CO2), and in 2012 reached a new high of 1819 ppb. They are part of the overall change in total long lived [gg] gas concentrations to levels collectively not seen on earth in several million years, and a change that, geologically speaking, has been extraordinarily rapid.
If one doesn’t want to accept something, you can run rings around it in fancy sounding language circles forever. The issue is, what is reasonable to do in response?
Not eat meat? Not my choice, but it is something for those who want to consider. Subsidize non meat foods? Address the more basic agricultural issue which have far more of a fundamental effect, and which by addressing would actually lead to more of a net improvement anyway? Address the fossil fuel aspect, which we have to shift over from anyway, end international reliance upon (in the U.S, for instance), and which creates a lot of additional, more “traditional” pollution anyway, and which right now are heavily subsidized relative to other energy sources because their huge impact is not integrated into the price, so the market skews heavily from promoting more beneficial and efficient development of all the possibilities we are otherwise well more than capable of? Etc.,Etc. .
Again, it seems like the intent here, whether realized or not, is to simply both try to discredit anything that has to do with basic Climate Science and cling to anything that does so, rather than just try to present evidence that the problem may not pose the same risk range that many (such as myself and a large majority of the world’s leading scientists) I think rather reasonably, if not extremely logically, believe that it does.
I think if the debate and discussion was had in a more reasonable, objective and considered way, the view of the great majority of the world’s leading scientists would likely be seen as the more logical.
If that is not the case, then it would not be so viewed. (But the point is that to view it as not, and continue to reinforce that view, what is happening is that anything that supports basic climate science is immediately discredited, attacked, or focused into something that it is not, and anything that seems to discredit it, no matter how misrepresentative, or out of focus, is immediately adhered to and solely, often erroneously, relied upon.)
On the other hand, if that is the case, why not already have, or consider that view? It seems, while those concerned with CC are labeled (often incorrectly) as alarmists and fearful, that the real fear is fear of climate change redress, and that drives almost everything, for example, here, which then skews the interpretation of what is a completely separate subject : The actual nature of the problem. (As distinguished from the question of what to do about it.) Something which, given that CC probably does (or actually “does”) present a significant and very high risk range, would ultimately seem to not be a rational, but fear based and obviously strongly driven, response.
But why not instead focus on the far more relevant, and far more interesting question, of what the risk ranges might actually reasonably be, and also how best to sensibly redress them? Particularly, in a way that addresses any legitimate concerns or fears over possible ways of redress.
Yes, wanting to do something about the problem is based on concern of the problem (and for some people fear of it, maybe, for them, warranted). But not wanting to do something about it based upon fear is not the same thing as what the problem itself is, which are two completely separate things. But it is wildly skewing the interpretation of it in the first place.
Fear based upon the CC affect is logically expressed though examination of the climate change issue; fear based upon redress of the issue is rationally applied to examination of possible ways and proposals of redress. The two are two separate things. The latter, in some circles, is driving the former and interpretation of the former, and leading to heavily self-selecting reinforcement of anything that serves, in turn, to disparage it as well.
Can we force these people to only eat non-global warming food products??? Identify yourselves; set the example!!! I am so tired of this!!
So does that mean the infrared absorption band for methane doesn’t count towards global warming now?
cwon14 says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Of course the papers claim are rubbish as it assumes a fact not in evidence, an unquantified claim regarding “greenhouse” gasses only assumed but never empirically defined.
What does not in evidence specifically mean in this context?
By quantified, do you mean proof of the impossible, not related to the basic and only real issue: which is, what will the affect of a huge geological external spike in total long lived [gg] ultimately be on long term climate, relative to what we have evolved under and adapted to?
According to the Science Daily article:
Over 800,000 years, methane levels never went above 700ppb. By 1950 they were at 1100. While they’ve been relatively flat the last several years, they are still extremely high (methane breaks down into CO2), and in 2012 reached a new high of 1819 ppb. They are part of the overall change in total long lived [gg] gas concentrations to levels collectively not seen on earth in several million years, and a change that, geologically speaking, has been extraordinarily rapid.
If one doesn’t want to accept something, you can run rings around it in fancy sounding language circles forever. The issue is, what is reasonable to do in response?
Not eat meat? Not my choice, but it is something for those who want to consider. Subsidize non meat foods? Address the more basic agricultural issue which have far more of a fundamental effect, and which by addressing would actually lead to more of a net improvement anyway? Address the fossil fuel aspect, which we have to shift over from anyway, end international reliance upon (in the U.S, for instance), and which creates a lot of additional, more “traditional” pollution anyway, and which right now are heavily subsidized relative to other energy sources because their huge impact is not integrated into the price, so the market skews heavily from promoting more beneficial and efficient development of all the possibilities we are otherwise well more than capable of? Etc.,Etc. .
Again, it seems like the intent here, whether realized or not, is to simply both try to discredit anything that has to do with basic Climate Science and cling to anything that does so, rather than just try to present evidence that the problem may not pose the same risk range that many (such as myself and a large majority of the world’s leading scientists) I think rather reasonably, if not extremely logically, believe that it does.
I think if the debate and discussion was had in a more reasonable, objective and considered way, the view of the great majority of the world’s leading scientists would likely be seen as the more logical.
If that is not the case, then it would not be so viewed. (But the point is that to view it as not, and continue to reinforce that view, what is happening is that anything that supports basic climate science is immediately discredited, attacked, or focused into something that it is not, and anything that seems to discredit it, no matter how misrepresentative, or out of focus, is immediately adhered to and solely, often erroneously, relied upon.)
On the other hand, if that is the case, why not already have, or consider that view? It seems, while those concerned with CC are labeled (often incorrectly) as alarmists and fearful, that the real fear is fear of climate change redress, and that drives almost everything, for example, here, which then skews the interpretation of what is a completely separate subject : The actual nature of the problem. (As distinguished from the question of what to do about it.) Something which, given that CC probably does (or actually “does”) present a significant and very high risk range, would ultimately seem to not be a rational, but fear based and obviously strongly driven, response.
But why not instead focus on the far more relevant, and far more interesting question, of what the risk ranges might actually reasonably be, and also how best to sensibly redress them? Particularly, in a way that addresses any legitimate concerns or fears over possible ways of redress.
Yes, wanting to do something about the problem is based on concern of the problem (and for some people fear of it, maybe, for them, warranted). But not wanting to do something about it based upon fear is not the same thing as what the problem itself is, which are two completely separate things. But it is wildly skewing the interpretation of it in the first place.
Fear based upon the CC affect is logically expressed though examination of the climate change issue; fear based upon redress of the issue is rationally applied to examination of possible ways and proposals of redress. The two are two separate things. The latter, in some circles, is driving the former and interpretation of the former, and leading to heavily self-selecting reinforcement of anything that serves, in turn, to disparage it as well.
In many places, cows eat grass. Grass is produced by absorbing carbon dioxide. Huge amounts of it. Grasslands are a carbon sink. Some of this carbon gets made into cow (or maybe milk), some is excreted, and some is given off as methane. The actual balance (carbon in : carbon out) in all this is seldom calculated. Some farms could actually be net sinks.
I wonder if the guys who come up with this actually have a conscious thought– or are they like a fellow I know on another forum who claims he doesn’t have a conscious thought and that he’s an automaton. Don’t ask how he can post to a forum, I still haven’t figured that out.
Now I have to worry that I may become a fugitive because if there’s one thing I do well in the morning, it’s pass gas. Eating more vegetation is likely to make that worse instead of better. Behold the cattle we’re talking about here, all they do is eat vegetation and our great global-climate scientists are having a tizzy about how much methane a cow produces. Imagine how much methane 7 billion vegetarian humans will produce……we might do better to eat more meat rather than less.
When you attend conferences, seminars and training in this day and age, you usually asked dietary requirements when you register. Things like Gluten Free, Vegetarian etc. Just put ‘Vegan Free’ and see what turns up.
mjmsprt40 says:
July 21, 2014 at 4:12 pm
“Imagine how much methane 7 billion vegetarian humans will produce…”
_____________________
There would be far fewer than 7 Billion of us, if we were all vegetarians, but that’s the basis of support for this kind of “study”.
Funny. I am the Christian who loves legitimate science, and wants to see scientific advances used for the good of humanity, with resulting prosperity for all, especially for those living in the suffering 3rd world. It seems like the uber-progressives (progressing towards WHAT, exactly?) are the ones who want to turn back the clock, and do everything possible to direct us all back towards the stone age – all of us but themselves, of course.
Bull!
RGP says:
July 21, 2014 at 4:05 pm
“In many places, cows eat grass. Grass is produced by absorbing carbon dioxide. Huge amounts of it. Grasslands are a carbon sink. Some of this carbon gets made into cow (or maybe milk), some is excreted, and some is given off as methane. The actual balance (carbon in : carbon out) in all this is seldom calculated. Some farms could actually be net sinks“.
_________________
Please see the video, posted above, by:
Per T says:
July 21, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Livestock is not the problem, it is a part of the solution:
What these propagandist playing researcher really are saying is that they want poverty stricken regions to remain that way.
Glenn Beck did much as the question why Al Gore eats meat, and interviews PETA in this video
Vegetarians are unevolved humanoids … meat eaters on the other hand are fully evolved.
“Vegetarian” is an Indian word for “Bad hunter”. Or so I’m told.
As a vegetarian for 4+ years now (lacto/ovo – whey, dairy & eggs are okay) I have the following to say:
1) The idea that extra methane from cows will influence the climate is wrong.
2) I’m offended when people use vegetarians as cover for their agenda.
3) I’m offended when people use their agenda to try and force vegetarianism on others.
3) I like it and feel great. Hope you do too regardless what your choices are.
4) It isn’t for everyone. To each their own.
5) If you ever do give it a try make sure you get B12 and EPA/DHA regardless of the source. There are no substitutes and those are essential for human health.
6) I’m not flatulent. After a short time your body adapts to extra fiber. What makes me gassy now is sugary treats. A nice maple fudge treat and you don’t want to be on a car ride with me.
Cheers
There was a post here a few years ago about how having livestock is better for everyone overall.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/11/animal-vegetable-or-e-o-wilson/
M Courtney says:
July 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Actually, I’d accept all the illegal immigrants if I could deport an equal number of lawyers. They’re much worse than slackers.
“Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says
Actually, I’d accept all the illegal immigrants if I could deport an equal number of lawyers”
No comment on the immigration issue ‘cept that I have compassion for all those poor souls – but, we all know what Billy Shakespeare said about lawyers.