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.
The conclusion of the news release – that eating meat contributes to global warming – is NOT diminished by any of the following:
Water vapour being a larger greenhouse gas than CO2 – not relevant.
That there used to be lots of bison and now they’s not – not relevant.
That cows on pasture aren’t a net contributer to GHGs – grain fed cows are.
That vegetarian humans emit more GHG than meat-eating ones – maybe but entirely anecdotal
There is nothing controversial about this statement:
1. Methane is a GHG which contributes to global warming.
2. The raising of cattle with food grains increases the net output of Methane and therefore contributes to global warming.
I don’t like preachy vegans but neither do I like preachy meat-eaters.
I love eating meat but can entirely understand many of the reasons not to eat it – gestation crates, for example, are a sad part of eating delicious bacon.
“Saren says”
I don’t care if someone is a vegetarian, if that is what floats his/her boat. I don’t think eating vegetables should be outlawed, or curtailed in any way, or should there be any restrictions on their use in people’s diet, and I’ve never heard anyone, ever, with that viewpoint. While I eat meat, I also like things like broccoli and asparagus and lettuce – quite bit .
Ever heard the opposite? You know, that meat eating should be curtailed, restricted , rationed, or even outlawed?
LOL at the “preachy meat eaters” – I haven’t heard that one before.
Does not anyone know what the @ur momisugly#$%ing carbon cycle is?
Until someone figures out how to feed cattle with petroleum this is just a bunch of … appropriately … bullshit.
That Ross Gaunaut once said, Farmers should farm kangaroos instead of ruminants. So did that Indian Patchari, a Hindu. Methane does not stay in the atmosphere long. In fact it makes up the smallest % of gases, along with nitrous oxide. And from some experiments years ago, carrots scream when pulled up.
So, what exactly are they suggesting we do here? Do we eat the beasts to get rid of them or not? Is this advocating species extinction to ”stop climate change”? Of course if we all change over to a vegan diet, what effect will that have on our own species? If we stop eating meat we will be over run with wild cows etc. It all sounds like a lot of B.S.
We need to get the loonies to face up to the reality of Climate change and stop denying that it’s something that happens, always has and always will. Attacking humanity with crazy notions, that shutting down our industries and now also our agriculture, will keep our global average temperatures down to an imaginary safe level. They really should start questioning their assertions and seriously ask, what if they are wrong? what are the costs to humanity and the environment. Stop assuming that every crazy idea that’s put forward, is automatically correct.
Every time a cow farts, somewhere a fish has to swim a little bit harder! Just pull the collective plug on those less than useless climate models, and tune back in to the real world.
Eamon.
[+emphasis]
Well, that explains a lot.
Hmm… so we should all become diabetic, obese, … Manufactured foods and vegetarianism are not healthy. I remember ‘Diet for a small planet’ and believed that was the solution. Now 40 years later, after eating healthy whole grains and other carbs, I have diabetes and am now quite carb intolerant. Humans need animal based food including fats.Vegetable oils are toxic.
Plants are not our friends. They can only protect themselves chemically with toxins to kill or discourage their predators. Yes, we can perhaps feed the world on plants but we will be a lot less healthy and many of us will die much sooner. It is estimated that 50% of the Chinese population is pre-diabetic. I expect this rate to increase with each generation as the population becomes less and less tolerant of carbohydrates.
***what they mean is no-one will be able to afford meat if the alarmists get their way:
21 July: Bloomberg: Christopher Flavelle: A Carbon Tax Even Republicans Can Support
A new survey suggests the conventional wisdom about carbon taxes is wrong: Promising to give people their money back with rebate checks isn’t the best way to win public support.
Polling by the National Surveys on Energy and Environment, a joint project by the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy and the Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College, shows that Americans in general (and Republicans in particular) still don’t like the idea of a tax on carbon emissions in general. Democrats are evenly split, and Republicans overwhelmingly oppose it…
One way to soften that opposition is to commit to returning the revenue that’s generated. That could be done in different ways, including using the money to reduce other taxes. But the simplest way is just cutting people checks. And when David Amdur, an economics professor at Muhlenberg College and the survey’s lead author, tested that option, Democrats supported a carbon tax by more than 2-to-1, as did more Republicans…
???But Amdur found that the best way to gain public support for a carbon tax — and the only way to persuade a majority of Republicans — was to use the revenue to fund research into renewable energy…
The poll’s sample of 798 included 221 Republicans; it’s possible that a larger survey would yield different results…
That doesn’t mean the advocates of such a tax can start celebrating. When asked whether they would support a carbon tax even if it raised energy costs by 10 percent, respondents of every partisan affiliation said no — including Democrats, by a significant margin.
***And however you spend the proceeds of that tax, it will increase energy costs. That, after all, is the whole point…
Amdur died before the results of this survey were published. His research suggests, however, that the path to a carbon tax with bipartisan appeal isn’t hopeless after all.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-21/a-carbon-tax-even-republicans-can-support
Plants good. Animals bad.
Did this bring to mind for anyone else that ’50’s classic sci-fi movie “The Thing”?
It ate meat.
Frodo says: “I’ve never heard anyone, ever, with that viewpoint.”
Well I’m sure the same people who would ban meat would also ban all sorts of fruits and vegetables. These authoritarians would probably love to ban the importing of exotic fruits to lessen CO2 from transportation as one example.
It’s pretty established that most of our views on global warming come from our political beliefs. The authoritarians love to see a problem to justify government intervention. Small government people don’t want there to be a problem so that no government intervention is needed. This bias is so ingrained it needs to be acknowledged. It’s ok to say “I eat meat and know it contributes to global warming but I don’t care because the contribution is tiny and I don’t think global warming is much of a problem anyway”. What I think is more common in this thread is “well that claim is just wrong because of and besides we need to eat meat because of “
My government spent $10 million or so on research to stop sheep and cows farting. Make us all vegetarians we will fart even worse and they will spend anothe $10 million to make us stop farting or maybe someone will invent an after burner. Bomber that CH3 will produce CO2 when burned though.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
TRM says:
July 21, 2014 at 5:01 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/21/claim-we-should-all-be-vegetarians-to-stop-global-warming/#comment-1691311
==================================================================
Well said, particularly #3 and the advice in #5 for those who choose to go vegetarian. To many jump on the bandwagon just because it sounds good.
(I was going to say “feels good” but that won’t last long without #5.)
Edit:
What I think is more common in this thread is “well that claim is just wrong because of [insert illogical/irrelevant/insulting statement] and besides we need to eat meat because of [other unsubstantiated nonsence]“
I wish the greens would stop being so pushy. I’m already trying to rid the planet of these GHG-emitting livestock as fast as I can eat them. What more can I do?
Actually Saren, you cannot pretend to summarize or even understand any of the comments here that are addressing cattle and dairy. Instead you are surprised that there is some crude humor about the government funded scientistic studies purporting to describe the effects of cow farts on earth’s atmosphere. You don’t get out much, do you.
Do feel free to eat your organic soy product patty and wash it down with organic soy product coffee, and certainly help yourself to all the organic soy product milk you may fancy.
But do not mistake your faux ethics and irrationalistic beliefs about a vegetarian organic diet as having any relevance, scientific basis, or logic to anyone else. It is just a personal preference masquerading as science.
Saren says:
July 21, 2014 at 7:42 pm
“It’s ok to say ‘I eat meat and know it contributes to global warming but I don’t care because the contribution is tiny and I don’t think global warming is much of a problem anyway”.
_________________
You might have more credibility if you quit falsely putting words into people’s mouths in order to rationalize your own beliefs. I don’t think that’s likely to happen, as you seem to be wound tightly into your beliefs, regardless of truths presented to you.
If you had been paying attention in this thread you could have learned, or at least been exposed to references and inferences that:
a) all plant material eaten by animals was destined to decay and turn into CO2, anyway
b) methane from cow burps is not only a miniscule fraction of naturally occurring methane, but quickly breaks down in the atmosphere into CO2 and H2O.
c) intense grazing is the only way to keep grasslands productive and prevent desertification
d) there are people behind the scenes in the environmental movement and the halls of power with a stated goal, the reduction of humanity. Those people are continuously propagandizing the masses with such things as this “study” topic, in an effort to win widespread uncritical support for their agenda.of power and control
Termites make more methane than cattle. If you get rid of range land and let it go back to trees, the termite load goes up. Yes, termite farts are more powerful than cow farts.
Oh, BTW, ruminants can eat plants we can not; like the stalks of corn plants. You get more total productivity out of a mixed diet of plants and animals than out of plants alone. Vegetarian diets do not reduce consumption, they waste the parts of the plants we can not eat. That then rot in the soil (or are eaten by bugs and termites) making, yes, CO2 and methane….
Someone needs to get these folks to think more than one step ahead…
They did a medical survey and tests on ‘carnivores’ (Mainly meat eaters) Vegan, (no animal products, fish or dairy food) and omnivores (balanced with vegs and fruit, fish, meat, and dairy food). The carnivores had high fat and prone to heart disease, etc., Vegans, not as much energy, lack of muscle development and of course low Vit 12. Omnivores, the healthiest. Actually some chimpanzees have 20% of their diet as meat. Yes they kill small monkeys. (Even each other sometimes, between different competing clans). Whereas the metabolism of Inuits (before being introduced to a Western diet) was just flesh and blubber. Only a kg of berries all year and a soup made from a seals stomach. These cold weather humans could survive on mainly flesh and fat and protein, whereas the rest of us can’t. Very much like the Neaderthals.
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
Vegans Are Not From Vegas
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 …
I’ve added this to the head post.
w.
Zeke,
I actually like the ridicule and think it’s well placed. My interest in this is the simple claim that eating meat contributes to global warming. To me it’s a substantiated claim that I wouldn’t argue against.
As to my “faux ethics” and my “organic soy product patty” I think you misunderstand. I eat meat. I don’t care if you do or don’t. I don’t advocate any particular diet. I couldn’t care less about the impact my meat-eating has on global warming (but I admit it may have a tiny impact).
The Green final solution has been updated due to recent scientific breakthroughs regarding the omnipotent nature of Averaging. Redeem your data, average it or be left behind in the wrong.
And so, a future humanity of herbivores will be created by averaging omnivores…
Alan Robertson,
“all plant material eaten by animals was destined to decay and turn into CO2, anyway”
This can’t be true can it? I could eat a seed or plant a seed. Wouldn’t these two actions produce quite different results in terms of emitted CO2?
“methane from cow burps is not only a miniscule fraction of naturally occurring methane, but quickly breaks down in the atmosphere into CO2 and H2O.”
No argument from m but this doesn’t invalidate the claim that eating meat produces more GHGs than not.
“intense grazing is the only way to keep grasslands productive and prevent desertification”
Again no argument but I don’t see the relevance. Remember that cattle raising involves much more food than what is eaten at pasture.
“there are people behind the scenes in the environmental movement and the halls of power with a stated goal, the reduction of humanity. Those people are continuously propagandizing the masses with such things as this “study” topic, in an effort to win widespread uncritical support for their agenda.of power and control”
And you will defeat them by arguing over how cow farts aren’t as big a deal as they claim they are?
“you seem to be wound tightly into your beliefs, regardless of truths presented to you”
You mean my insane belief that a person eating meat probably produces a tiny/minuscule/unimportant bit more GHGs than a vegetarian?
Hilarious nonsense, all of that AGW/CO2 fairytale, as an elementary order-of-magnitude calculation shows: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/eating-sun-fourth-estatelondon-2009.html
Saren, you have engaged in a cheap head-fake and a mischaracterization of the thread when you say, “What I think is more common in this thread is “well that claim is just wrong because of [insert illogical/irrelevant/insulting statement]”
You continue, “and besides we need to eat meat because of [other unsubstantiated nonsence]“
So you have no grasp of nutrition or any other economic, social, cultural, environmental, or spiritual issue that is being discussed wrt domesticated animals here. Your cheap head-fake summary of the issues is merely suggestive language (“illogical,+/irrelevant”), entirely lacking in substance. It was “all hat and no cattle,” as they say.
Here’s one for WWF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReELc6H6f98