No, Vox, Measuring Burps and Farts Will Not Save the Planet

From ClimateREALISM

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article at Vox, titled “Scientists are measuring burps and farts. It could help save the planet,” claims that methane produced by farm animals is causing dangerous global warming, and thus that reducing agriculture-related methane is critical to limiting warming to the 1.5°C target established for political ends in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. This is false. Animal related methane is not a threat to the environment, contributing little if anything to global warming.

The article primarily references research efforts by scientists in Columbia who measured the amount of methane different farm animals produce in their burps and gas depending on what kind of forage they eat, in order to determine the feed that will produce the least methane. Animals are placed in chambers and their emissions are monitored.

Vox writes:

These chambers are part of a multiyear project to lower the amount of methane produced by farm animals. This is important. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, responsible for roughly 20 to 30 percent of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. The bulk of global methane emissions stem from human activities, and the largest single source among them is agriculture — namely, the burps of ruminant animals such as cattle, goats, and sheep, as well as their manure.

Vox cites the International Energy Agency, not a scientific organization by the way, to claim that most methane emissions are due to human activity. This is not an established fact and is likely false. Multiple peer reviewed research papers, here and here, for example have found that natural sources of methane, such as but not limited to releases from wetlands, and other agricultural sources, such a emissions from rice paddies, are the largest sources of methane in the atmosphere. Indeed, recent research indicates that human methane emissions, from oil and gas operations, for example, have declined in recent decades even as production has increased and atmospheric methane in general has grown – suggesting an increase from natural or other human sources

Although methane is, as Vox says, a “powerful” greenhouse gas with much more warming potential per molecule than carbon dioxide, it has a short atmospheric life as so plays a relatively minor role in the atmosphere when it comes to long-term warming. NASA, one source for Vox’s story admits as much. What Vox and NASA neglect to mention, however, is that methane’s absorption bands occur at wavelengths that the most powerful and abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, making up as much of 97 percent of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, already covers. Methane, a small trace gas, is a very minor player despite alarmism surrounding it.

With that in mind, it is more useful to look at greenhouse gas emissions in general. Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) focusing on the United States (since the nation has the best and most easily available data) clearly show that livestock emissions are a small part of human emissions overall. (See figure below)

Figure 1. Greenhouse gas emissions by sector in the United States. Note that beef production is less than half of the entire livestock sector, at just 2 percent. Source: Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Graphic by Anthony Watts. Artwork icons in graphic licensed from 123rf.com.

Vox targets beef production in particular, writing:

“Without addressing emissions from the food sector, it’s impossible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, beyond which climate change will be catastrophic. Lowering meat (and especially beef) consumption is probably the most important part of that effort, but it’s an uphill battle as meat consumption is projected to rise globally over the next few years.”

But beef production only represents 2 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and is beaten out in emissions by crop agriculture, which contributes 10.2 percent of U.S. emissions. These numbers are likely similar in most western countries. Climate Realism has covered these facts multiple times before, herehere, and here, for example. The facts haven’t changed, yet climate alarmists arguments are never revised or improved.

That data supports research done by Prof. Habil Wilhelm Windisch, Ph.D., of the Technical University of Munich, which indicates ruminants’ contributions to greenhouse gas emissions are exaggerated by climate alarmist groups and media outlets like Vox, by a factor of 3 to 4 at minimum.

Further, methane emissions have been steadily dropping in the United States since the 1990s, according to data from the EPA. (See figure below)

It may be worthwhile to run the “livestock gas chamber” experiments for data collection purposes, or to learn more about ruminant digestion and how to improve the efficient digestion of foods livestock consume. Ultimately, though, it is a waste of time and money if stopping the gradual warming of the planet is the goal. All it is likely to accomplish is to drive additional research dollars to scholars who attack modern, high-yield, fossil-fuel-intensive, agriculture, while making meat more expensive, making it harder for the world’s poorest people to afford it. Vox’s own comments clearly indicate they support reducing meat consumption and its projected increase in the developing world – in short, the authors assumed from the outset that livestock methane emissions were contributing to dangerous climate change, which is, in fact, something they should have to prove. As such Vox is willing to mislead and ignore relevant data to make the case for reducing meat consumption as critical to fighting what the authors perceive as dangerous climate change.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 13 votes
Article Rating
69 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
December 8, 2024 6:05 am

I think it is vegans, vegans, all the way down.

Scissor
December 8, 2024 6:07 am

Seems like this would be a good day to grill up some beef before this next winter storm arrives.

heme212
December 8, 2024 6:27 am

if we can get enough of the warmunists into the field doing this kind of research, it just might

December 8, 2024 6:34 am

Its kicking off in the UK with the news that Arla with the support of Three major supermarket chains are trialing a methane reduction additive in 30 dairy farms. Arla products are being boycotted and one of their products Lurpak is sitting on the supermarket shelves with huge discounts and not being bought.

Reply to  kommando828
December 8, 2024 6:51 am

“not being bought”
Probably twice as expensive- but worth it to save the planet! 🙂

Reply to  kommando828
December 8, 2024 10:15 am

If the additive is sea weed, does it affect the taste of the beef?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 8, 2024 10:32 am

Probably, Swedes which I know as neeps certainly affect the taste of milk.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 9, 2024 3:33 am

The additive is Bovaer, the BBC has a misinformation page on it which by its existence means the misinformation is true 😉 . I object to it just on the grounds of reducing methane for no good reason.

December 8, 2024 6:49 am

Farmers will have to get permits for how many cow farts will be permitted on their farm. /s

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 8, 2024 9:25 am

Likely NOT “/s”, JZ. That seems like something they would do.

Reply to  Tony_G
December 8, 2024 9:27 am

No doubt- I fought state bureaucracy here in The People’s Republic of Wokeachusetts for 50 years- enough battles I could write a book about it.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 8, 2024 10:44 am

The of all the green jobs that will be created to count the farts.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
December 8, 2024 11:49 am

They’ll need fancy sounding titles. 🙂

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 10, 2024 12:26 pm

We should have a naming contest.

Jeff Alberts
December 8, 2024 6:53 am

It’s my understanding that any emissions from animals are neutral. If not, why not?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 8, 2024 8:01 am

From what I’ve read, those emissions are even less than that produced if allowed to simply rot, due to the fact that animals convert nutrients into carbohydrates and sugars which the animal uses. Those nutrients would otherwise result in methane.

Walbrook
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 8, 2024 6:38 pm

Cows are part of the carbon cycle, the carbon in their feed came from the atmosphere and as Bruce says, if it decays on the ground it releases methane.

Boff Doff
December 8, 2024 7:06 am

. “Livestock contributions are place between 85-95 Tg (1 Tg = 1 trillion metric tons) each year”*

As the total weight of the atmosphere is roughly 5 quadrillion tons and CH4 lingers for about 10 years does this mean that 18% of the atmosphere is cow farts?

*https://gml.noaa.gov/education/info_activities/pdfs/CTA_the_methane_cycle.pdf

Reply to  Boff Doff
December 8, 2024 10:18 am

That seems unlikely because the current methane in the atmosphere is less than 2 PPMv.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Boff Doff
December 8, 2024 10:46 am

Only without lightning.

Reply to  Boff Doff
December 8, 2024 11:52 am

Hi Boff.

I think your 1 Tg is a bit large. 1 Tg = 1 teragram = 1 million tonnes = 1,000,000,000,000 grammes.

SCInotFI
December 8, 2024 7:14 am

CFC (cow fart concern) – the dying gasp (or other emission) of a desperate dinosaur to stay relevant…grabbing my non-gmo popcorn next as this is gonna be good!

Sweet Old Bob
December 8, 2024 7:14 am

Vox …..Voice of x crement ?

😉

December 8, 2024 7:18 am

This puts what was thought to be an ecological disaster in a different light.

Over a century ago brave hunters heroically killed tens of millions of methane emitting bison whose immense emissions had been causing disastrous runaway climate change for thousands of years.

Gums
Reply to  Thomas Finegan
December 8, 2024 9:46 am

Salute!

What about the European bison or other ruminants that grazed the steepes in eastern europe and what is now portrayed as Russia or a ‘stan’ ? Maybe they didn’t fart? And could it be that the “Little Ice Age” resulted from the slaughter of millions of North American bison as the U.S. built the railroad and began farming millions or acres for agriculture? Surely the decrease was due to less farts, ya think?

Of course the termites are a problem, then the humans, who breath out the evil Co2 in immense quantities and also fart. Is soylent green the answer? Using solar powered incinerators and excavators, of course.

GASP! All you have to do now is propose a study anything that could possibly contribute to Gorebull Warming, while not providing an accurate number/result on temperature of the effort (which ain’t possible, anyway).

Gums rants…

Reply to  Gums
December 8, 2024 10:21 am

Speaking of termites, they used to be listed as a major CH4 source. Now, one rarely hears about them. Linnea doesn’t even mention them.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 9, 2024 8:12 am

As there are an estimated 10 quadrillion termites in the world and over 2000 different species concentrating on the comparably insignificant number of ruminants seems to be the wrong target 🙂

Jeff Alberts
December 8, 2024 7:26 am

Aren’t termites the leading emitters of methane?

Earthling2
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 8, 2024 8:31 am

Don’t give them any ideas Jeff, or they will be a war on termites now. Well, maybe like the squatters, we can get them out of the houses.

leefor
Reply to  Earthling2
December 8, 2024 10:26 pm

and it takes so many to make a meal.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 8, 2024 3:25 pm

As I recall it, termites were estimated to produce CO2 = 4X what all human activity does in early IPCC work. That may have gone down the memory home,along with the NASA measurements of rising temperatures on all Solar planets, especially after the discovery to the dense termite hills in the Amazon, covering an area equal to New Hampshire, that were previously unknown to climate “science”. They might also produce some methane from all the wood they crunch up.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 10, 2024 12:27 pm

Think of the number of green jobs created to count termite farts!

Staggers the mind….

John Hultquist
December 8, 2024 8:00 am

I note the following regarding the food sector:
it’s impossible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, beyond which climate change will be catastrophic.” [by Benji Jones in Vox, that may come from Richard Waite of World Resources Institute. Jones should know better but seems to be infected by the ClimateCult™ virus.]

There is not now nor has there ever been any justification for the 1.5 number. The perpetrators of the 1.5°C should have their photos and bios on a wall-of-shame.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/10/a-brief-history-of-the-1-5c-target/

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  John Hultquist
December 8, 2024 10:48 am

Police most wanted board?

strativarius
December 8, 2024 8:06 am

If people like and enjoy things those things must be

Bad
Banned or taxed to the hilt

Reply to  strativarius
December 8, 2024 3:28 pm

are cigarettes banned or taxed? There might be a clue about future directions there. It is really about the money (or whatever passes for money).

December 8, 2024 8:10 am

It may be worthwhile to run the “livestock gas chamber” experiments for data collection purposes, or to learn more about ruminant digestion and how to improve the efficient digestion of foods livestock consume.

________________________________________________________________________________

For God’s sake please stop making suggestions
on how the Climate Cult can do this or that better.

Dont-Make-Suggestions
Reply to  Steve Case
December 8, 2024 3:32 pm

Seems to me a section of the livestock industry already has productive ways to do that. A recent article on chicken raising claimed that well over 500,000,000 chickens each year are destroyed before market, suggesting the stresses of getting more lbs out of each chicken is a major factor in chicken dysfunction and mortality

December 8, 2024 8:19 am

“Although methane is, as Vox says, a “powerful” greenhouse gas with
much more warming potential per molecule than carbon dioxide,…”
________________________________________________________________________________

Did Leuken write that?

Maybe she would like to tell everyone just exactly how much, business as usual, methane is going to run up global temperature by 2100. She should cite her source and or show her work.



Reply to  Steve Case
December 8, 2024 10:25 am

She cited Vox as the source of the claim, which you even quoted.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 8, 2024 11:10 am

The claim is of course arrant nonsense. !!

CO2 does not cause any measurable warming, so CH4 most certainly doesn’t.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 8, 2024 1:06 pm

Here’s her quote with some bolding underlining and CAPITALIZATION:

“Although methane IS, AS Vox says, a “powerful” greenhouse gas with much more warming potential per molecule than carbon dioxide . . .” 

The desire to defend folks on your side of the coin is certainly understandable but if they’re going about it in a way agrees with the opposition when the opposition is spreading what amounts to plain old garden variety bullshit, it needs to be pointed out.

The molecule per molecule claim without including how much warming CH4 will produce is classic misdirection, and as such, is bullshit. Sir John Houghton who came up with the Global Warming Potential numbers never completed his thesis to include how much warming all those greenhouse gases with their outrageous GWP numbers were likely to produce.

The GWP numbers are based on the concentration of 
the green house gas, not its absorption spectrum:

  • CH4 1932    ppb GWP       86
  • N20   337    ppb GWP     273
  • CFC      4    ppb GWP ~8000 
  • SF6 0.007   ppb GWP 17500

At least that’s what the Duck Test says.

Reply to  Steve Case
December 8, 2024 6:41 pm

Those numbers should all be normalized to a 100-year integration time (86 is for 20 years) as per the participants of the Kyoto Protocol, and then the GWP converted to measured PPMv because we can’t weigh what is in the atmosphere.

Just what side of the coin do you think I’m on? I’m in favor of truth and accuracy, where ever it leads.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/06/the-misguided-crusade-to-reduce-anthropogenic-methane-emissions/

Reply to  Steve Case
December 8, 2024 3:36 pm

Did she not say it is essentially insignificant — and point out why? If you want hard data perhaps you should be looking for that which says atmospheric methane is not doing anything noticeable.

Reply to  AndyHce
December 8, 2024 10:58 pm

A full throated rebuke of the GWP number scam is what’s needed.

Earthling2
December 8, 2024 8:44 am

Isn’t the same grass and grain just going to rot back to methane/CO2 if the cows didn’t eat it? Seems like a moot point as the CO2 for the grass/grain just came out of the atmosphere. They make the exact same same argument for burning wood pellets, that the CO2 just came out of the atmosphere, so it’s carbon neutral. Well, minus all the processing/transportation inputs and costs. And I support forestry, growing millions of trees on my private lands/woodlot. The more cows the better. It means we have a very green healthy ecosystem. And methane overlaps saturated WV in several micron bands so isn’t even true. Even India doesn’t believe this crap. They have more cows than most countries combined and they don’t even eat them. We need to tell the idiots to make better arguments.

Reply to  Earthling2
December 8, 2024 11:12 am

All part of the CARBON CYCLE that allows all life on the planet to exist !!

Reply to  Earthling2
December 8, 2024 3:40 pm

The cows in India could be the real target, or at least all the “idiots” there who hold cows sacred. Some religions (e.g. CC) don’t hold with the practices of heathens.

December 8, 2024 8:51 am

My four longhorns love cabbage. They’ve been doing great work this year keeping the property clear. I think I’ll treat them this week.

Reply to  Shoki
December 8, 2024 10:27 am

Does the cabbage increase their methane production as with humans?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 8, 2024 11:14 am

I think it changes the amount of other olfactory gases. 😉

Reply to  Shoki
December 8, 2024 11:13 am

Yum, nothing like a good cabbage fart in an enclosed lift ! 🙂

Robert Cutler
December 8, 2024 9:04 am

Google AI Overview:

Estimates of the number of bison in 1800 range from 30 to 75 million, with the most common estimates being 50 to 60 million. 

As of January 1, 2024, there were 87.2 million cattle and calves in the United States,

Denis
December 8, 2024 9:30 am

Humans exhaled breath contains about 40,000 parts per million CO2. Humans should therefore be banned?

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Denis
December 8, 2024 9:58 am

Only when they claim to be climate scientists.

Rahx360
December 8, 2024 10:10 am

Next step to save the planet is kill all animals. If cows are bad then so are all other animals. Just kill’m all!

Reply to  Rahx360
December 8, 2024 11:17 am

Actually, Cows are “ruminants”, so they have second stomach that allows for long term anaerobic digestion.. This is where most of the CH4 is produced.

Not all animals are ruminants.

Gums
Reply to  bnice2000
December 8, 2024 12:20 pm

Salute!

Reason I used “ruminants” is we don’t see a lot of concern about lion farts or bear burps. In other words, the wamists don’t like veggie animals and tolerate carnivores. Hmm, what about fish? Well there are veggie fish and basic, predator carnivore types. Also, sea turtles get special attention cause some kid on the ‘net “shopped” a pic of a turtle with a plastic straw in its nose.Therefore, BAN PLASTIC! But seems most of the fish we eat are carnivores. And I have to look up if they burp or fart. Worst ones I have encountered for poluting the bait bucket have been small fish like menhaden, and they aren’t meat eaters.

BIRDS! Do the turkeys fart? How about the egg-laying chickens or the ones at chic-filet or KFC?

Gums wonders…

.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gums
December 8, 2024 5:03 pm

The ones at Chik-fil-a and KFC aren’t farting, burping, or living.

Reply to  bnice2000
December 8, 2024 3:42 pm

one step at a time

ethical voter
Reply to  Rahx360
December 8, 2024 1:18 pm

Hey! I’m an animal. I love vegans, preferably well marbled and cooked medium.

December 8, 2024 10:12 am

Although methane is, as Vox says, a “powerful” greenhouse gas with much more warming potential per molecule than carbon dioxide, …

That statement is wrong. The accepted definition of Global Warming Potential is for equal weights of methane and CO2, not equal number of molecules. Because methane has a smaller molecular weight than CO2, it takes more methane molecules to equal the weight of CO2. Therefore, when calculating the global warming potential per molecule, it turns out that the integrated 100-year warming potential for methane is only about 10X that of CO2. However, the annual increase of CO2 is about 2-3 PPMv, while methane (from all sources) is only about 0.01 PPMv. That is, the the relative impact of CO2 is 20-30X that of methane.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/06/the-misguided-crusade-to-reduce-anthropogenic-methane-emissions/

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 8, 2024 10:51 am

100 x 0 = 0

Sparta Nova 4
December 8, 2024 10:43 am

Where’s the beef?

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
December 8, 2024 11:19 am

I had Lamb and Manuka honey sausages last night., not beef.. Sorry !

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bnice2000
December 10, 2024 12:29 pm

You slacker!
LOL
j/k

MrGrimNasty
December 8, 2024 11:22 am

Denmark is taxing farmers equivalent of ~$43 per 1 ton CO2 equivalent of methane from 2030.

December 8, 2024 12:18 pm

“Warning! Danger Will Robinson!” — robot wildly waves arms…

Bob
December 8, 2024 1:00 pm

Very nice Linnea. Vox won’t let facts get in the way of spreading their gospel when it is so easy to simply lie.