Worldwatch: Livestock Account for 51% Greenhouse Gases; Meat and Dairy Must Be Replaced
Published October 20, 2009 @ 04:26PM PT
An article just published by the Worldwatch Institute's World Watch magazine comes to some must-read -- and must-heed -- conclusions (my thanks to Laura P. for alerting me). Environmental researchers Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang have determined that even the high percentage of greenhouse gases for which we already understand animal agriculture to be responsible is a gross underestimate (emphasis in the following is mine):
Our analysis shows that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32,564 million tons of CO2e [CO2 equivalent] per year, or 51 percent of annual GHG emissions.
This is a strong claim that requires strong evidence, so we will thoroughly review the direct and indirect sources of GHG emissions from livestock. Some of these are obvious but underestimated, some are simply overlooked, and some are emissions sources that are already counted but have been assigned to the wrong sectors.
I don't have time to analyze the report in detail tonight and indeed have had only enough time to skim it so far, but as I said at the start, it is clearly a must-read.
The conclusions are startling and compelling, and the authors do not back away from very clearly arguing that "livestock products" must be largely replaced to reverse climate change and that "this approach would have far more rapid effects on GHG emissions and their atmospheric concentrations--and thus on the rate the climate is warming--than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."
The solution they propose will make some cringe. Their recommendation is a large-scale transition to meat and dairy analogs -- in other words, a transition to processed foods made mostly from soy and seitan/wheat gluten (though vegans everywhere are pleased to point out that the latest -- and greatest -- vegan cheese is entirely soy-free). And "for consumers who do not like meat and dairy analogs, protein-rich legumes and grains are readily available alternatives."
Most folks who advocate healthy eating and indeed most vegans I know recommend limiting consumption of processed foods, but I certainly get the reason for pushing the analog angle at this point. When most people are resistant to letting go of flesh, dairy, and egg consumption, non-animal foods that mimic what's familiar can be an enormous help in making the transition. It's common for people going vegan or vegetarian to initially rely fairly heavily on processed meat and dairy substitutes but then transition away from those to more whole foods-based eating. And it is oh-so-clear that we need to move away from animal agriculture now, so I don't have a problem with helping society ease into plant-based eating with analogs, knowing that sometime after people have successfully made the switch, they're typically more amenable to relying less on analogs and more on healthier, whole-foods sources of nutrients.
I am thrilled that the researchers so plainly point out that just stopping our havoc-creating practices of (violent) animal exploitation is a far simpler, smarter, and more immediate solution than trying to accomplish the impossible by engineering our way through it. (At this moment, I'm reminded again of the post from ALDF that I've linked to previously on this blog: "The Low-Tech Fix That Dare Not Speak Its Name.")
Do go check out the article (follow this link for the summary, and then continue from there for the full article in PDF). After looking at and discussing the numbers in the first part, the authors devote the remainder of the article to exploring their recommendations in detail -- including discussion of how the replacement of animal products would also "reverse the ongoing world food and water crises," a look at the business opportunities for food companies, and analysis of the marketing, financing, and overall "benefit package" that could accompany this switch. (The authors see far more potential in getting these changes implemented from the supply/business side of things than via governments.)
Fascinating stuff. What we're increasingly learning is darkly poetic. It is our insistence on mass violence, on exploiting and killing tens of billions of our fellow animals each year, that is not only killing us in terms of our health but also threatening our planet. And slowly but surely, scientists and the public are starting to realize it.
Related: "Save the Animals, Save the Planet: Blog Action Day '09, Climate Change"
---
Photo by Flickr user foxypar4
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
EmailRelated Posts
Author
-
Stephanie Ernst is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull. In her advocacy, she works to challenge prevailing perceptions of animals, to show the connections between animal exploitation and other injustices, to help people see that animals are more like us than different, and to encourage compassionate, nonviolent living and eating.
Stephanie-
I have read the report and made DETAILED notes about what I see as glaring innaccuracies. I will gladly email you the notes when they are more coherent (they are scribbles on paper made on the bus), but for now, I would just advise that all environmentalists and animal advocates be VERY cautious with these numbers. They are shocking for a reason- because they are very questionable.
(I will say however that I agreed with the recomendations 100%)
Posted by Michael A. Weber on 10/21/2009 @ 07:06AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm certainly interested to get your more detailed take on this, Michael. Keep us posted!
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 10/21/2009 @ 07:22AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yeah, I will keep you posted. I don't want to imply malice by the authors, nor do I even want to say that they are wrong- just that the information they presented is not enough to lead to those conclusions at all.
One example is that they say that animal agriculture is responsible for 37% of methane released (a generally accepted figure), and they say that methane is actually about 3 times as powerful (75x CO2 instead of 23x) as the FAO/IPCC reports, meaning that animals are responsible for an additional 8% of GHG.
However, this would mean that the other 63% of methane (100% - 37 = 63) ALSO needs to be multiplied by about 3, and most of that methane comes from fossil fuel extraction (mostly natural gas, but also coal and oil) as well as rice paddies. This means that comparing animal ag's 37% to the remaining 63%, animal ag would actually proportionately DECREASE as far as how much each source contributes.
I will certainly email you my notes when they are coherent, but to me, the most important thing to take out of this is that the exact same numbers can continually be analyzed (or skewed?) to show in one case that Animal Ag is the culprit and another time show that Coal is the culprit. It needs not be a competition between AR and the fossil fuel approach to climate- both are equally important, and comparable efforts are needed to radically reduce both society's animal intake (ideally to zero of course) and our dependence on dirty energy.
Posted by Michael A. Weber on 10/21/2009 @ 07:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Great post and important information. Looking forward to additional notes and debate.
Animal Ag and coal/fuels- both culprits, but the root of all of our problems still come down to the over-population of humans, and our lack of control. Too many mouths to feed and the lack of common sense to stop the insanity.
In 2050, our world population should hit about 9 billion. How will this planet feed that many people without changing our eating habits? Our species is not endangered, or even threatened, yet we are still pro-creating at an alarming rate.
For what?
Have a lot of children...get a reality show? People are now rewarded for this action.
Pathetic and shameful.
Posted by Michele McCowan on 10/21/2009 @ 12:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
To be honest, I'm sceptical about the claim that over half the world's GHG emissions can be attributed to animal agriculture - although I don't think there can be any doubt that the mainstream livestock industry (ie. intensive animal farming) has unacceptable environmental consequences, particularly in the pollution of waterways, destruction of wilderness and methane emissions. 51% just seems to me a somewhat unlikely proportion, when you factor in the significant GHG emissions from petrol-driven transport, coal-fired electricity and logging of native forests for woodchips - not to mention the methane emissions from vegetation, rice paddies, etc.
It may be worthwhile to offer a more conservative estimate of GHG emissions caused by animal agriculture - the figure of 25-30%, roughly that put forward by the UN, is still more than enough to justify the argument that a change in human diet and lifestyle choices (ie. becoming almost, if not completely vegan) can radically reduce GHG emissions. The science in this area strikes me as more indicative than exact - and overstatements can undermine the case, leaving us vulnerable to accusations of lacking credibility.
In many parts of Asia (Malaysia and Indonesia especially) and Africa (under a recent deal between China and the DRC), massive GHG emissions are generated by clearing millions of acres of rainforest for conversion to palm oil plantations. The palm oil is then used in numerous processed foods (including some which are ostensibly vegan, notwithstanding that palm oil is directly responsible for the extermination of orangutans and other wildlife).
I agree with Stephanie that "substitutes" like vegan cheese and vegan sausages can help omnis make the transition, and maybe there is a place for these kind of products in the current social landscape. But it'd be helpful if processed vegan foods were more environmentally friendly.
Personally I still prefer my apples, and a local (vegan) beer.
Posted by Campbell Macknight on 10/23/2009 @ 11:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unfortunately, I just reviewed the report in detail and it is full of errors and damages the credibility of food and climate researchers.
1. The authors are right that the FAO does not include livestock breathing emissions in GHG emissions. But when the authors add livestock breathing emissions back into total emissions, they don’t add human breathing emissions back in. So when they conclude that livestock emissions are 51% of anthropogenic emissions, they are conveniently neglecting another major source, thereby incorrectly inflating the proportion that comes from livestock.
2. Next the authors tackle land use. They acknowledge that the FAO counts emissions from converting land from forest to livestock use, but say the estimate is too low because it doesn’t count emissions from all the pre-existing land used to support livestock, which could instead be used to grow climate-friendly biofuels. That’s like saying we should count my bathroom floor as a GHG emitter, because I’m not currently growing biofuels on it.
3. The authors insist that we have to look at livestock methane emissions on a shorter timeframe than the FAO does, which is arguable. But even if you agree, they do not recalibrate methane emissions from non-livestock sources as they do for livestock, saying it requires “further work.” So, just as they did with livestock breathing emissions, they inflate livestock methane emissons but conveniently neglect to inflate non-livestock methane emissions. Then of course the percent of emissions from livestock looks astronomical.
There are other problems too; for my whole analysis see my blog post at http://eatinganimals.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/climate-chicanery/
Posted by Angelique Chao on 10/30/2009 @ 04:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Saludes,
Para poder repartir y diseminar la información contenida en el último informe del World Watch Institute, "la campaña" del 51%; ha sido lanzado por una organización protectora de animales y del medio ambiente. Los organizadores desean informar a ésos que atienden a Copenhague que el 51% de todas las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero son del sector del ganado, es por esto que han creado la página www.51percent.org .
www.51percent.org/
Si usted visita la página de "soluciones" hay varias medidas que usted puede tomar, por ejemplo la 2da solución permite que usted envíe una carta a un número de los funcionarios de los ministros de ambiente por todo el mundo. Usted puede también agregar una bandera del 51% a su blog o Web site. Tan a la víspera de Copenhague, visite por favor www.51percent.org ¡y envíe una carta a los que van a atender a COP15 y compatre este Web site a con todos!
Posted by Jason Dunham on 11/27/2009 @ 04:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.