Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases

[sandinista]

Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 12909.html

so...why is it that every second TV ad is about "green" cleaning products, "eco" cars, and other "earth friendly" products but no talk, at all, about the real culprit when it comes to the environment, the meat industry? Everyone talks about biking or public transport, recycling, composting, etc, but the fact is, the meat industry and meat consumption is causing most of the problems related to global warming and the destruction of the environment. Where is the mainstream media on this issue?

[MacDoc]

You could at least get the science correct....

Plus it was posted elsewhere....

According to Goodland and Anhang's paper, [b]which has not been peer-reviewed[/b], scientists have significantly underestimated emissions of methane expelled by livestock. They argue that the gas's impact should be calculated over 20 years, in line with its rapid effect – and the latest recommendation from the UN – rather than the 100 years favoured by Livestock's Long Shadow. This, they say, would add a further 5bn tons of CO2e to livestock emissions – 7.9 per cent of global emissions from all sources.

Methane is a strong GHG but is short lived - controlling methane is a short cut to ameliorating short term warming....it's no panacea nor does it account for 1/2 of all GHG which is a patently ridiculous position.

[sandinista]

It's not simply about cow emissions, its also the deforestation, the water usage and pollution, and the overall resources it takes to maintain a factory farm.

Plus it was posted elsewhere....

Really, funny because that article only came out 2 days ago and I never saw it here.

[MacDoc]

Well you didn't look....this is a far more accurate article.

October 30, 2009
Methane’s impact on global warming far higher than previously thought
Mark Henderson, Science Editor

The effects of a critical greenhouse gas on global warming have been significantly underestimated, according to research suggesting that emissions controls and climate models may need to be revised

Methane’s impact on global temperatures is about a third higher than generally thought because previous estimates have not accounted for its interaction with airborne particles called aerosols, Nasa scientists found.

When this indirect effect of the potent greenhouse gas is included one tonne of methane has about 33 times as much effect on the climate over 100 years as a tonne of carbon dioxide, rather than 25 times as in standard estimates.

Drew Shindell, of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who led the study, said that the findings added to the importance of measures to contain methane emissions, as well as those of carbon dioxide, which will be discussed at the Copenhagen climate summit in December.

As methane breaks down much more quickly than carbon dioxide, the impact of cuts on climate would also be faster. “For long-term climate change there’s no way around dealing with CO2 — it’s the biggest thing and it lasts hundreds of years,” Dr Shindell told The Times. “But if we were to have a concerted effort to deal with non-CO2 we could have a very large impact on the near term.

“Substantial reductions in methane, carbon monoxide and black carbon: that’s the way to make a big difference. I think it should be more of a priority [for Copenhagen].”

Dr Shindell’s results, published in the journal Science, also raise the possibility that global warming forecasts may be too optimistic. The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2007, predicts that global temperatures will rise by between 1.1C and 6.4C during the 21st century.

The study has further implications for emissions trading schemes, which currently focus only on carbon dioxide. For these to be effective the warming effects of methane need to be pegged to those of carbon dioxide at the right “exchange rate”.

Dr Shindell said: “We undervalue methane. The whole point of having a scale is to relate different gases together, to enlarge the pool of mitigation options. But if you’ve got the wrong value for one, clearly you don’t have maximum efficiency.”

The researchers wrote in Science: “We found that gas-aerosol interactions substantially alter the relative importance of the various emissions. In particular, methane emissions have a larger impact than that used in current carbon-trading schemes or in the Kyoto Protocol.”

The exchange rate between carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is generally calculated according to global warming potential (GWP), which measures the effects of one tonne of a gas on warming over 100 years in comparison to one tonne of carbon dioxide.

Keith Shine, of the University of Reading, one of the originators of the GWP concept, said that Dr Shindell’s work would help to refine this. “It does change the picture quite significantly,” he said. “GWP is an exchange rate between different gases and this does potentially change the rate to make methane more valuable, giving more encouragement to reduce methane emissions.”

He said, however, that emissions controls should continue to focus chiefly on carbon dioxide. “The long-term effects of carbon dioxide are so strong that if you take the eye off the ball you will be storing up problems for the future.”

Methane is acknowledged as the second most important greenhouse gas produced by human activity after carbon dioxide and is responsible for about a fifth of warming effects. Its chief sources are landfill sites, fossil fuel energy and agriculture, particularly rice and livestock farming.

In the study Dr Shindell used computer models to investigate how methane, carbon monoxide and other greenhouse gases besides CO2 interacted with aerosols — airborne particles such as sulphate molecules.

Sulphate molecules, produced when sulphur dioxide is oxidised in the atmosphere, have a cooling effect on the climate as they reflect heat but, while their direct effects are included in climate models, their indirect effects in combination with methane and other gases are not.

Methane and carbon monoxide reduce levels of sulphate aerosols, because they use up oxidants such as hydroxyl in the atmosphere. Fewer oxidant molecules are thus available to oxidise sulphur dioxide to produce sulphate.

“What happens is that as you put more methane into the atmosphere, it competes for oxidants such as hydroxyl with sulphur dioxide,” Dr Shindell said. “More methane means less sulphate, which is reflective and thus has a cooling effect. Calculations of GWP including these gas-aerosol linkages thus substantially increase the value for methane.”

Chris Huntingford, of the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, said: “This is an excellent analysis demonstrating that methane emissions have the potential to add more to future warming than hereto realised. This new research complements the well-established result that carbon dioxide emissions have been responsible for a large fraction of the global warming observed since pre-industrial times.

“There is a requirement to distil this more complete understanding of how the many different atmospheric gases interact, both between themselves and with humans. Policy decisions must account for such interactions and links to emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and atmospheric aerosols.”

[sandinista]

Oh, I take it you mean posted in another topic thread. Sorry, I really don't have the time or will to read through EVERY thread. Some of which contain over 30 pages. My sincere apologies

[MacDoc]

Generally climate articles go in one of three threads

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=66842

and always try to go to actual science sources not spin the way the OP was presented

The article was posted here

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=92316&start=900

It's important policy given that Copenhagen is coming up and leveraging methane reduction by say eating more kangaroo is effective.
There are cattle feeds as well that reduce methane.

But the spin on the article is way over the top...the media is not "all over it" as it's no big deal tho it is an important point.

[prospero811]

Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 12909.html

so...why is it that every second TV ad is about "green" cleaning products, "eco" cars, and other "earth friendly" products but no talk, at all, about the real culprit when it comes to the environment, the meat industry? Everyone talks about biking or public transport, recycling, composting, etc, but the fact is, the meat industry and meat consumption is causing most of the problems related to global warming and the destruction of the environment. Where is the mainstream media on this issue?

Because all this "eco" and "earth friendly" stuff is bullshit.

We'd put a bigger dent into "greenhouse gases" if we built 100 nuclear power plants.

I'd like to see how they came up with the figure meat accounts for half of all greenhouse gases - hard data, not mere conclusions, I wanna see the numbers. It must be a fantastic study, since somehow they've been able to nail down a good estimate of the total amount of greenhouse gases and all sources thereof, together with the quantities expelled by each source. Poppycock. It's a pack of vegetarians making things up to advance their agenda.

[sandinista]

Generally climate articles go in one of three threads

some kind of forum rule?

But the spin on the article is way over the top...the media is not "all over it" as it's no big deal tho it is an important point.

so, whats the spin? Its no big deal? I disagree. I've heard people say all kinds of things so nothing really surprises me anymore. It is a big deal. No question.

It's a pack of vegetarians making things up to advance their agenda.

what agenda would that be? Greedy malicious vegetarians

[MacDoc]

Something along those lines...consider the venue.

Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases
Livestock causes far more climate damage than first thought, says a new report

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Spin.....

what was that about vegetarian....

Justin Kerswell, campaign manager for the vegetarian group Viva!,

and yes climate related articles are in specific threads one of which is stickied.

[sandinista]

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956

The UN, damn hippy vegetarians

[Strontium Dog]

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956

The UN, damn hippy vegetarians

That article says 18% and not 50% as claimed in the OP

Still 18% too much IMO, but not as much as claimed above.

That said, I could well believe that it's more than 18%, if my own personal vegetarian methane output is at all typical of cows too

[FightingFalcon]

Livestock's Long Shadow is the reason why I stopped eating beef. I can't give up chickens or pigs but I'm done with cows. One day I might be able to give up all meat but it's the easiest way to get protein.

And there are actually people talking about this. Bill Maher brought up this point when talking to the Administrator of the EPA (Lisa Jackson) but she completely ignored his point.

The fact of the matter is that the Prius driver who eats hamburgers regularly is harming the environment more than a vegetarian Hummer driver. We have our priorities completely wrong.

[MacDoc]

No FF the fact of the matter is you are are incorrect

They found that the difference between an heavy meat-eating diet and a vegan diet was about 2 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person per year. The difference between a Prius and an SUV (they used a Suburban, which gets about the same mileage as a Hummer) was 4.76 tons per year.

Pollan’s claim, said Eshel, “is emphatically wrong. If you’re looking at the mean American driving habits and eating habits, it’s not even close.”

Try the orginal paper

Diet, Energy, and Global Warming
Gidon Eshel* and Pamela A. Martin
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Received 16 May 2005; Final form 12 December 2005

ABSTRACT: The energy consumption of animal- and plant-based diets and,
more broadly, the range of energetic planetary footprints spanned by reason-
able dietary choices are compared. It is demonstrated that the greenhouse gas
emissions of various diets vary by as much as the difference between owning
an average sedan versus a sport-utility vehicle under typical driving conditions.
The authors conclude with a brief review of the safety of plant-based diets, and
find no reasons for concern.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach ... -wLjEVTy0g

[FightingFalcon]

Fine - people who eat meat and/or drive Hummers are assholes

[Fact-Man]

Fine - people who eat meat and/or drive Hummers are assholes

and, earlier,

The fact of the matter is that the Prius driver who eats hamburgers regularly is harming the environment more than a vegetarian Hummer driver. We have our priorities completely wrong.

Which MacDoc claimed was "incorrect."

However, I assume you included the environmental harm that's caused by grazing beefstock, fattening them up for market in vast feedlots, and shooting them full of growth hormones and antibiotics, which, if considered, makes your assertion a lot more true and a lot less false than MacDoc claims.

It appears he's right insofar as emissions are concerned but that's not the whole picture with beef, which require far more land resources to produce protein than do other crops.

The other problem with the Prius is in manufacturing the batteries they use.

I commend you for giving up beef.

[MacDoc]

Did you read the original paper???

•••

Fossil based agricultural practices which result in 1 calorie of food for 12 calories of fossil fuel ( transport and fertilizer ) are far more harmful

Highly intensive red meat production is incredibly harmful in enormous ways beyond just GHG but let's not take our eye off the main problem which is GHG emissions by humans.

Cuba does okay with meat production but reverses that 1:12 formula.

Kangaroo would definitely help.

Best comment in the entire spin cycle...

Moncrief said educating consumers about their food choices is essential.

"We need to get organizations who are working on food-policy issues, like the UN and the USDA, to at least come out and say, ‘Here are the health benefits, here are the environmental benefits'" to reducing meat consumption, Moncrief said. "If we could get these governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to come out and say it, that would be a good first step."

Gidon Eshel, assistant professor of physical oceanography and climate and co-author of the University of Chicago report, echoed Moncrief’s concern.

Eshel told TNS: "It is probably not a bad idea to suggest unambiguously that if more people used less animal products in their diet than they do today, we [would] be able to sustain a larger number of people on earth for an indefinite period of time, or afford those who are here a better lifestyle."

Sustainable farming is a critical challenge not only just for GHG concerns.

[FightingFalcon]

However, I assume you included the environmental harm that's caused by grazing beefstock, fattening them up for market in vast feedlots, and shooting them full of growth hormones and antibiotics, which, if considered, makes your assertion a lot more true and a lot less false than MacDoc claims.

It appears he's right insofar as emissions are concerned but that's not the whole picture with beef, which require far more land resources to produce protein than do other crops.

The other problem with the Prius is in manufacturing the batteries they use.

I commend you for giving up beef.

Thanks...I definitely miss steak

I have to do more research into this topic but Livestock's Long Shadow states that livestock are responsible for more GHGs than all of transport combined so I'd have to read more of MacDoc's sources to see what they argue.

There are more issues at stake here than just GHGs as well. I'm currently reading Green Guide: The Complete Reference for Consuming Wisely which is written by the same people who publish the NatGeo blog/newsletter "The Green Guide."

Here are some highlights from the book on this topic specifically:

More than quarter of all corn grown worldwide is fed to cattle, primarily in the United States. Each 1.2 pounds of corn-based feed translates into a quarter pound of marbled muscle tissue, which will be ground into hamburger. Growing all this corn takes resources: nitrogen fertilizers, gasoline and diesel to power the farm machinery, and irrigation water. Intensive corn agriculture also requires pesticides such as atrazine, a hormone-mimicking chemical that runs off fields and has been detected in water wells throughout the Midwest.

Raising one cow requires 35 gallons of oil. Most of this energy is used to produce synthetic fertilizers made from fossil fuels, and the rest is used for milling and transportation. One-fourth of all fertilizer used in the United States goes to grow corn fed to cattle and other livestock. One-fifth of the petroleum consumed in the United States goes to crop production and transportation. All told, the amount of energy that it takes to create a single quarter-pound hamburger patty equates to the energy in one cup of gasoline.

That quarter-pound hamburger also requires 600 gallons of water to produce, most of it to grow the corn feed and the rest to water the cattle and to cool down and reduce dust in the feedlots. Some 40 percent of all beef cattle in the United States are fattened on corn grow with water drawn from the dwindling Ogallala aquifer, an underground store of water lying under the states of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Texas.


Small farms tend to recycle their manure as fertilizer, but large feedlots bulldoze manure into lagoons, where it slowly decomposes, posing a threat to water supplies. The high level of nutrients in manure can cause harmful algae blooms in surface waters and contaminate well water. These manure pounds also release methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide. These emissions, combined with the carbon dioxide spewed from the tailpipes of farm machinery and the fertilizer plants, mean that a single quarter-pound burger creates about eight pounds of carbon dioxide, the same amount of greenhouse gases emitted on an eight-mile drive in an SUV.

Also...from LLS:

http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

Using a methodology that considers the entire commodity chain, it estimates that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport.

[Reverend Blair]

All meat is not created equal, either, Fighting Falcon. We buy local and the cattle are not corn fed, they just wander around a field in the summer eating grass. They get hay and some chop (crushed grain) in the winter. The manure is used to fertilize the pasture and hay the cattle live on. There are no chemical fertilizers involved. There is little transport as well. The guy we buy from gets the meat slaughtered locally.

The cost is about the same (maybe 5% percent higher) as you'd pay in a supermarket, but you load up the deep freeze once a year.

Even better are bison. They can forage even in the winter (cattle won't dig through snow) and their digestive systems produce less methane. Unfortunately I'm not rich enough to buy half a bison a year.

[Fact-Man]

All meat is not created equal, either, Fighting Falcon. We buy local and the cattle are not corn fed, they just wander around a field in the summer eating grass. They get hay and some chop (crushed grain) in the winter. The manure is used to fertilize the pasture and hay the cattle live on. There are no chemical fertilizers involved. There is little transport as well. The guy we buy from gets the meat slaughtered locally.

The cost is about the same (maybe 5% percent higher) as you'd pay in a supermarket, but you load up the deep freeze once a year.

Even better are bison. They can forage even in the winter (cattle won't dig through snow) and their digestive systems produce less methane. Unfortunately I'm not rich enough to buy half a bison a year.

Ditto here, and its actully quite a bit less expensive than meat in the supermercado.

The problem is, of course, that most folks, and by that I'd say up to 90 per cent or more, aren't positioned to buy their meat from local organic growers but have to rely upon the supermercados.

FF did some good research and brought forth some details on why meat is responsible for up to 18 per cent of emissions, taking us through the entire chain of its production. Proponents of the production of nutritious foods, especially for third worlders, have been making this argument for at least 25 or 30 years.

Meanwhile, US beef producers have pushed their products hard in Japan and slowly but surely made beef eating "the thing to do" in that country, despite its high cost in their markets. Next I suppose comes China, then Maylasia, then Indonesia, and soon enough the topsoil needed to produce all that beef will peter out and we'll be stuck in the mud, unable to return to saner ways of feeding ourselves.

But what's a capitalist meat grower care? Not a whit, blind as a bat. he only cares about his bottom line and the next quarterly report, which had damned better show some year-over growth in revenues and profits or he may be toast.

[MacDoc]

Most farmers I know are capitalists.....responsible ones that make reponsible choices...tired argument FM -

[Fact-Man]

Most farmers I know are capitalists.....responsible ones that make reponsible choices...tired argument FM -

Well, perhaps you don't know enough American cattle ranchers.

[sandinista]

Most farmers I know are capitalists.....responsible ones that make reponsible choices...tired argument FM -

Well, perhaps you don't know enough American cattle ranchers.

meat industry? Responsible? I would say tired response but I've never heard that one before

[Reverend Blair]

Most farmers I know are capitalists.....responsible ones that make reponsible choices...tired argument FM

A lot of farmers I know are being forced into choices they don't particularly like. They've been forced to get bigger and to crop every bit of land every year. Some of them are clearing trees that were planted after the dustbowl because they need the land.

I know a few who have managed to buck that trend by going organic or finding niche markets, but they had different circumstances than most. The reality of most modern farming is that it isn't responsible and the choices were made by economists and Monsanto employees back when Reagan was in the White House. Now you just do what you have to to keep your head above water.

[MacDoc]

I know a few who have managed to buck that trend by going organic or finding niche mark

exactly - it's a choice - if there is a consistent villain in the whole food chain its the leverage of the food processing giants. FM wants to maintain unending growth is mandatory to a capitalist, I'm the black swan as are thousands of other businesses and amongst them farm families who are good stewards for generations.

The shift to sustainable is often not easy ..it IS however a choice.
Industrial agriculture OR meat production is exceptionally wasteful of many resources - some are choosing not to go that route just as responsible individuals and corporations are taking a greener view of their practices with the eye to sustainability.

Not enough and not with enough support but it is growing.

A carbon tax would hasten it all along.

[Reverend Blair]

It's not really a choice for a lot of farmers, MacDoc. They can't go organic because they can't get the financial backing, or the prices for the crops are too low, or there's no local market, or the advice they (or their parents) followed thirty years ago have trapped them in a cycle of big equipment and big land. The choice becomes to get industrial or get a job in town so somebody else can buy your land and get industrial.

I don't really see a way out of it for most of them until there are some serious changes to policy, and those changes aren't going to happen as long as the ag companies benefit from current policy.

There's also a memory gap. The generation after me doesn't remember farming being done any other way. The idea of small equipment and small amounts of land is foreign to them.