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.
Should we not therefore kill all animals that emit green house gasses in an attempt to curb climate change? This includes all sea life?
Or maybe this study is agenda rather then thought driven.
This is not “a little single claim made by the alarm1sts.” It is asserting that methane from dairy and beef cattle, nitrous from crops, and carbon dioxide from people utilizing fire of any kind, is causing global warming.
All of these gases are in naturally occurring cycles on earth and in the atmosphere already, and the sources from our own commercial and cultural activities are only a bit part of those cycles.
True, carbon dioxide should never be challenged alone. There are many greenhouse gasES. Boomer politicians use the term “greenhouse gasES.” Carbon dioxide, nitrous from crops, methane from cattle, all effective refrigerants, and let us not neglect to mention particulate matter 2.5 from all shipping and personal transportation, should always be listed in every discussion of greenhouse gases. Otherwise, people might give “credibility and believability” to commenters who mischaracterize the significance and gravity of the situation, and do not understand the science or economics of the claims of the progressive scientists who are attacking these naturally occurring gases, dusts, and aerosols, and many of the naturally the occurring elements.
Cattle are ruminants and belch the ‘odious ‘
gases. The other end of the gastric system produces fertiliser. which used to be gathered and spread on grain fields in the older system of agriculture.
Beans need land which is cleared of woodland and grass land. Rice paddies keep people in flood prone areas near rivers so loss of life is greater .from growing rice. than keeping herds of ruminants on higher drier grass land.
They should start over with the basics, someone mail them a carbon-cycle for dummies book.
I’m maintaining my longtime stance against exercise so as to continue with my commitment to low personal CO2 levels …
Saren says:
July 22, 2014 at 11:15 am
_________________
It’s certainly fair for you to bring up feedlot operations, where many/most US beef cattle are fattened up to add ~40% fat to their total weight before slaughter, since this article deals with total emissions to produce a pound of beef. Feedlot cattle are given ~30% feed supplement to the hay they are fed. Every sq foot of land used to graze cattle or produce feed sequesters more CO2 than it would if left fallow. Every bit of the carbon sequestered in the grasses/feed would eventually re- enter the atmosphere as CO2, in any case. Did the study consider these factors?
The report from Carnegie Institution for Science does not link to the actual study. It does, however, focus primarily on livestock production and emissions in developing nations, where feedlots are not typically employed.
It is also fair for comments here to question anything the purveyors of fear and guilt have to say, since the those promoters of cagw agit prop have an almost unbroken record of producing all manner of agenda- driven studies, using methodologies and garnering results which fall apart under close examination. So far, studies which show how many greenhouse gases are given off by humans while simply being alive have been a step too far and would likely backfire, but don’t rule such nonsense out, in future. In far too many instances, just like with this study, the finger of blame points at the poorest people living in the poorest nations and exhorts them (and us,) to reduce their dietary intake of protein from animal sources. Who, or what benefits from such rhetoric?
a) total population of ruminants in North America approximately the same today as it was 10,000 years ago.
b) Carbon Cycle anyone? NO NET CHANGE in atm co2 or ch4 when co2 & plant–>glucose; glucose +o2 & animal–> co2; any ch4 produced by gut flora is quickly oxidized in atm back to co2
c) It takes less fossil fuel to produce meat than veggies: no plowing, planting, chemical & fertilizer applications requiring tractors.
============================================================================
I looked at Saren’s site. Saren is sold out to the idea that green house gases must be reduced to prevent…something very bad. The “very bad” part is the part that only shows up in the models that have failed in their projections.
In the real world it’s just, well, weather changes whether a cow belches or not.
(But do appreciate that Saren wants to address the theoretical problem without Government mandates. That’s refreshing.)
(Sorry. Messing up my blockquote.)
[That right? .mod]
Gunga Din says “I looked at Saren’s site. Saren is sold out to the idea that green house gases must be reduced to prevent…something very bad.”
You have got to be kidding me. No where on that website do I say GHGs should/need/must be reduced.
My posts around “Fair Climate” involve voluntary compensatory payments in the form of development assistance. That has nothing to do with reducing GHGs.
The idea of no-regret development programs isn’t exactly a left-wing/environmental idea. WUWT’s own Willis Eschenbach’s thoughts on this topic helped form my opinions – see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/31/climate-caution-and-precaution/
OK. If you really think cattle emit too much methane, I’ll help ‘the cause’ and eat more beef…
Beef. It’s what’s for dinner!
Some years ago the Greens suggested that a tarif be put on the heads of sheep and cattle. Yes $15 per beef and cows and $7 on sheep. It didn’t get far? I don’t know what the hell this has to do with climate, fines for the dear old beast won’t stop them burping or farting, but would ruin the beef, wool and lamb industries and bi products.
mrainey47 says:
July 21, 2014 at 2:35 pm
This statistic concerns me more than the number of cow farts. . . .
The statistic is based on industrial beef production including corn fields, feed lots and the entire infrastructure. And notably, that figure, 400+ gallons of water per lb or beef is from the pro-beef side of that debate. If you watch Allan Savory’s TED talk, are linked to at least twice above, that figure could be reduced immensely by proper range management. More importantly, it could become a net producer of water if production emphasis was shifted to grass fed animals. Here’s the Savory link once again.
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change
Don’t know where that stray “are” came from.
They still supporting all their green measures will alter the climate? Who do they think they are some almighty force that has earned the right to hold all humans to account for the way they live and eat. They are not only misguided they are mad!
“… That tasty hamburger is the real culprit,” Caldeira said. …”
Now watch the Australian Greens lobby in the Senate to introduce legislation to make burgers less tasty … unfortunately for them, and everyone else, McDonalds had that covered by about 1978 in the major cities (though Yanky burger-king meat-like substance does taste a tiny frag better) which demonstrates the relative merits and efficiency of the private sector mechanisms, compared to the slow-boat-to-Naru government program tax wastage approach. And if it comes to a vote I’d say the omnivorous have the numbers, presuming democracy and free-will have any role to play in our dietary choices.
But they take a dim view of that, too.
Anyone who takes a passing indifferent glance at proposals that insist we should all stop eating meat, will in a about half a second realize this has nothing to do with climate (Newsflash: the majority of people on earth don’t even know what climate is, let alone what a change of climate is, seriously, they don’t!). They will immediately realize it’s a vegan anti-animal-eating canard utilizing the fear-of climate-change meme, as their convenient stage-prop. In another decade they’ll use something else to try and convert everyone to their form of enlightened benevolence.
Well good on them, but please don’t keep trying to force your cucumber sandwiches and Chick pea and lentil soup down my throat, I don’t like cucumber and lentils make me fart far more volumetric GH gas than a fairly large spread of cattle (no joke, lentils are evil, a single family size pot of lentil soup can make enough methane to lay waste to a small city).
It’s Carbon MONoxide (one oxygen molecule, not two) that is released from vehicles. They are totally different regarding their effects on the human body.
======================================================================
Yes. Thanks!
(The ModSquad never gets thanked enough.)
I’ll be sure to spend a millisecond mulling this over while firing up the barbecue or some slow smoked brisket.
“The great American bison is a truly magnificent animal. It is the largest land mammal in North America since the end of the Ice Age. Estimates of the pre-European herd size vary from 30,000,000 to 70,000,000 animals and they ranged over most of North America.” http://www.sunsetridgebuffalo.com/bisonfacts.htm
Seems as if [then] our smaller cattle simply replaced their close cousins the bison. Back of the envelope calculations don’t show much of a net gain or loss in North American methane output based on cattle. Though it occurs to me that maybe Buffalo Bill was an early climate activist.
Who knew Buffalo Bill was
Over here a bison is something you wash your fice in.
Cheers
Roger
http://www/rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com