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.
Well I am not starting to eat kangaroo to help the planet. My dog likes it. But we humans have about 2 kg of bacteria in our gut, to help break down food and meat as protein, is just one of the protein suppliers. Anyway, I strive to eat free range eggs and chickens, fish, as well as grass fed animals. But – some vegetarians not vegans, eat a good diet too. Plenty of roughage and fibre does not harm you. One can get enough protein or secondary proteins from some fruit and veg, beans etc. Rice and pasta. Anyway, just look at our teeth, we are not carnivores any more, so let’s hope intensive farming is improving, because there should be some adjustments, not only morally but also the health of the livestock overall. And grow your own veggies if you can, they are fresher and more vital, with no chemicals added.
Come on guys stop the Veggie bashing. It is easy picking and has nothing to do with the science.
I for one am a veggie (because personally I do not accept that man has the right to determine who has rights, just because you are strong does not mean that you have the right to ride rough shod over the weak and vulnerable, all life is amazining wonderous and cannot be recreated by man, and all life shares a common thread binding us together in the circle of life, namely the will to survive), but I have never once sought to persuade another to be a veggie (I belive in personal choice and free will, and I do not consider there to be any reason why my views are any better than someone elses), and being a scientist, I am sceptical of AGW, and consider cAGW to be a political construct and wholly unscientific.
Anyone who has read my many comments will know that I am far from luke warm, and would probaly be catagorised as a denier in that whilst I do not accept the infamous SkyD****** I do not dismiss out of hand much of what they say. About the only thing I accept in this debate, is the laboratory characteristics of CO2, and that CO2 levels have increased since the late 1950s
and that probably man is, at least in part, responsible for the rise in such levels. All other issues are up for grabs such that I am sceptical of each and every argument that supports AGW and sceptical of each and every argument that runs against that conjecture. On the otherhand, cAGW I find to be just so unscientific that I find its many claims laughable.
It is misguided to consider that just because someone is a veggie, they are dyed in the wool cAGW supporters and activists. I guess the same is probably true of those who are religous, ie., just because they believe in God doesn’t mean that they are ‘believers’ in cAGW. Isn’t Dr Singer an example of that?
The real issue is not whether you are a veggie, or a green, but rather, do you have an open mind, are you a scientist, and/or do you have a scientific approach to all matters (not simply cAGW but other political issues that our ‘controlled’ media bombards us with).
Humans are very complex. I know that it is irrational to be worried about the rights of animals (but heck they do not have a voice of their own, and why is it right to abuse them just because we can?), and I know that the rights of people appear (at least superficially) to be more important, but is that really so (I accept that this is natural and is an in build reaction according to Darwism)? But I would suggest that it is human nature to strive to be more than one can, and ideals are always worth striving for.
I would suggest that anyone who considers (and would be oposed to) aliens coming to planet Earth and farming us humans for food, knows deep in their heart, that there is an issue over the way we treat animals for our own convenience. But this is a science blog, it is not about morality, so the issue here is the science, and in particular the effects of natural variation verses manmade emissions of GHGs and manmade changes to land use.
There is no doubt that farming is not carbon neutral (whether that is an a problem is moot). Most farming relies on massive amounts of fertilisers and this is energy intensive. I for one, do not accept that biomass is carbon neutral and consider the claim that it is, is a clam based on dodgy statistics (cutting down a forest that is a natural existing carbon sink and then replacing it with a new forest which is exactly the same carbon sink does not offset the additional CO2 released in burning biomass compared to the lower CO2 released in burning coal or gas. One would need not only to replace the carbon sink cut down, but to also add a new carbon sink to eat up the additional CO2 released by burning biomass before one could claim that it is a carbon neutral activity).
There is also little doubt that if we were to eat a more vegatarian diet, farming still would not be carbon neutral but would be more carbon neutral.
Personally, I can’t stomach the thought (apologies to those who come from an asian background), if we were to supplement our diets with insects, this would tilt the table towards being even more carbon neutral.
But the take home is that mankind, in today’s world, can never be carbon neutral, but why should he be?
The world will be whatever the world will be, and certainly it will survive, may be not as it is today, but it will survive. Should we be concerned? Of course not, since change is natural, and the only certainty in the whole of this affair is that things have in the past changed, and will continue to do so no matter what we do. Stagnation is far from utopian, it is change that drives evolution, and why should we apply a break to that? .
Advance of life on Earth demands change, and since our most important ‘skill’ as a species is adaption, I see no particular problem for mankind in an ever changing and evolving world. Sure there will be challenges ahead, but I am an optomist and I see no reason why we should not meet every challenge thrown our way (whether of our own making or otherwise) at least untill such time as the sun begins to die (it is already dying, as is all life once born, but you know what I mean).
“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.”
These clucks make Terry Schiavo look like Richard P. Feynman.
If I eat myself would I become twice as big or would I disappear?
Since some sort of herbivore will eat the grass anyway-see Buffalo, and since the greenhouse gas emissions come as a result of eating the grass, there is no solution short of Roundup for the whole prairie.
Honestly, would they have blamed wolves for the Buffalo farts? Indians? Of course not, I saw Dances with Wolves, Indians are one with nature, and therefore blameless. Wolves ARE nature. It’s we humans who are to blame!
I’m tired of this game.
M Courtney says:
July 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm
“But in the UK I’m all for the dynamic, determined immigrants fighting their way in to my country. I’d just like to deport the slackers in exchange.”
a) Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it (well actually you got plenty already)
b) A leftist who wants to deport slackers? Isn’t it “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” anymore? As socialism rewards slackers via income redistribution, you’ll get more of them as socialism progresses. You’ll run out of people if you keep deporting them. The non-slackers will flee your country on their own.
And what kind of message does this send? First you pay the slackers with money you take from the productive, then you deport them?
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm
——
You must have missed all the talk of climate refugees.
Col Mosby says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:58 pm
——
You fail to understand the “reasoning” of the earth worshipers.
To them any change that is caused by man is evil. So the 50% is the only number that matters.
Whether it’s a small number or a large number isn’t important, it’s the amount of change from the base that matters.
Michael D says:
July 21, 2014 at 1:05 pm
——-
Deep earth carbon is the source of our wealth.
Leaving it in the ground would mean we leave them a much poorer world.
Yes, you can be a responsible, compassionate uber- progressive and also eat meat on occasion, as long as you approach it the right way and with the right amount of righteous, misguided guilt (note the name of the restaurant)…
I’ve posted this clip before at this site, sorry about the redundancy but it’s one of my favorites…
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlWrT5P2VI?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D
Saren says:
July 21, 2014 at 10:33 pm
___________________
“I could eat a seed or plant a seed. Wouldn’t these two actions produce quite different results in terms of emitted CO2?”
————–
Yes, in the short term… otherwise, nitpicking irrelevance in terms of grazing animals. Grazing animals foster improved growing conditions which greatly increase the area’s capacity for CO2 uptake. By the way, most grass/weed seed passes right through cattle.
_________________
“Remember that cattle raising involves much more food than what is eaten at pasture.”
——————–
That statement is simply untrue. Ranchers often do supplement the diets of their grazing cattle with feed, but if they run out of grass, they sell the cattle. Simple economics.
_________________
“…this doesn’t invalidate the claim that eating meat produces more GHGs than not.”
———————
That is the claim of this “study”, but what evidence do the authors, or you offer to support the claim? What contrary evidence shows the opposite to be true? What difference does it make?
__________________
“You mean my insane belief that a person eating meat probably produces a tiny/minuscule/unimportant bit more GHGs than a vegetarian?”
—————–
If that is what you meant, then why did you go to such lengths to imply the opposite? Mere denigration of the words of others?
_________________
“… you will defeat them by arguing over how cow farts aren’t as big a deal as they claim they are?”
——————-
Would you have “them” remain unnoticed and unchallenged?
Ps Cow burps are the greater source of cow methane.
Before man came along, we are told of vast herds of herbivores on both the African & American continents that roamed freely on the grassy plains. Along came Man & decimated them. Does anyone have any idea as to the numbers that there were before we came along and the numbers now? I would guess using my best scientific model that we are still short of the number by several million.
As all these herbivores continue to pollute the planet, I have volunteered to sacrifice my principals and eat them.
P.S. Why do vegetarians try to mimic omnivores & label things as “Vegetarian Steak & Ale Pie” etc?? Can’t they make up some imaginative new names like “Reconstituted Soya extract lumps & Ale pie”
Tom in Florida says: “..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.”
Goes along with what mountain lion hunters say, “If you ever see a mountain lion the only reason you were able to spot him is because … you are his dinner.”
But vegetation loves CO2 AND a warm climate! 😉
My favorite saying: “If humans were not supposed to eat meat then why does it taste so good?
Hold no, hold on, hold on. Yes, livestock emit methane and their manure emits nitrous oxide. But are livestock NET emitters? Livestock eat grass, corn, and other grains and plants. If THEY didn’t eat it, then SOMETHING would, and that something would emit methane and its manure would emit nitrous oxide. Or, if NOTHING eats it, then it would just rot, and when it does it would emit carbon dioxide. I don’t know the exact numbers, nor do I pretend to know how to even begin calculating them. But the author just completely IGNORES all the greenhouse gas emissions being PREVENTED by livestock.
Also, I don’t see the benefits of consuming chicken or pork over beef. Yes, cattle emit more methane and nitrous oxide PER ANIMAL than pigs and chickens, but a mature steer weighs 3-4 times as much as a mature hog, and hundreds of times as much as a chicken. A single chicken will feed a family of four, one meal. A single steer will feed hundreds of people on meal, or a family of four for several months. So the only sensible way to compare the species is on an emissions per-pound-of-edible-meat basis.
Grain and hay eaten by cattle is then eaten by people, who require proteins, fats, vitamins, and nutrients which the dairy provides. Therefore, the grain and hay, and the unsalable potatoes and apples, are still eaten by people when they are eaten by cattle.
People arguing against feeding grains to cattle and goats are better served objecting to forcing people to put grains into Amercian gas tanks. Grain and crops are commodities necessary for life. Oil and gas for personal transportation and shipping and can be located in continental shelves and in ANWR.
Governments are instituted among men in order to protect private property and the peaceful commercial activities of ranching and growing crops and fruits. This requires also the use of chemistry. The criminalization of harmless and beneficial uses of land, chemistry, and domesticated animals is what is at issue here.
So how about we don’t eat wormy, nematode-eaten, fungus-ridden organic potatoes.
Any potatoes not marketable can be fed to cattle. We then eat the 100% beef hamburger with feta cheese, mushrooms and onions, with a side of potatoes – which have been properly protected from blight and soil pathogens, so that there are over a billion pounds grown per year in excellent and appetizing form and inexpensive supply.
CO2 by itself does not warm the planet, nor does methane. Climate science looking only at inputs to the atmosphere is disfunction and irrelevant.
What about all the positive effects of all that green pasture land for cattle. All the photosynthesis and reduced albedo. What do they want – to pave over it all and make intensive chicken factory sheds without a blade of grass?
Also, by attacking countries where cattle rearing is on a large scale like Argentina and Brazil, AGW is making new enemies.
Sensible observation.
Zeke,
I don’t think it was a head-fake. I think what happened is that because I accept the basic premise of the article (meat-eating produces more GHG than vegetarianism) you assumed I was some sort of vegan eco-nut. Also I wasn’t trying to characterize the entire thread – only the part that instantly dismissed the claim of the article. The opinions are pretty diverse and some comments are pretty similar to mine.
“Gunga Din says:
July 21, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Plants good. Animals bad.
Did this bring to mind for anyone else that ’50’s classic sci-fi movie “The Thing”?
It ate meat. ”
The movie , not so good, was based on a Classic Science Fiction Story, “Who Goes There?” , by John W Campbell. You can read it here:
http://www.goldenageofscifi.info/pdf/Who_Goes_There.pdf
So are cows now weapons of mass destruction?
Or maybe, weapons of gastric ruption?
Alan Robertson says:
That statement is simply untrue. Ranchers often do supplement the diets of their grazing cattle with feed, but if they run out of grass, they sell the cattle. Simple economics.
The statement is true. Cattle go through feedlots. Feedlots involve giving the cattle food rather than have them on pasture. The rancher who raised the cattle on pasture may very well be a different person than the one running the feedlot. The amount of grass on the pasture has nothing to do with what is fed to the cattle in the feedlot.
“That is the claim of this “study”, but what evidence do the authors, or you offer to support the claim? What contrary evidence shows the opposite to be true? What difference does it make?”
To me it really doesn’t make a difference. I’m not entirely certain raising cattle leads to more methane leading to more overall GHGs leading to more global warming but it seems pretty believable.
“If that is what you meant, then why did you go to such lengths to imply the opposite? Mere denigration of the words of others?”
What was I implying? I may have come across as denigrating but that wasn’t my intention – challenging, provocative maybe but not denigrating.
The whole point I want to make is simply that being skeptical of alarmist AGW doesn’t require one to challenge every single little claim made by the alarmists. Accepting that meat-eating might produce more GHG than not doesn’t mean you have to turn in your skeptical credentials and steak knives. If one is trying to promote a certain view – like global warming isn’t as bad as many people make it out to be – it doesn’t help if that person quickly rejects any facts that don’t support that view. An outside observer might question the person’s believability and credibility.
ossqss says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:53 pm
I am going to protest and go get big steak for dinner 🙂
I wish I knew how to embed this image,,,,,,
http://i.imgur.com/eYXMSFA.gif
Thanks, ossqss that good laugh was worth my spilled coffee 🙂