Apparently, there is quite a substantial connection between the global meat industry and global warming. A report from the Food and Agriculture Organization concludes that the livestock industry generates 18% of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The figure includes feed production, the raising of animals themselves, as well as the transport and refrigeration of meat. Collectively, that is a larger share than all transport: cars, planes, etc. That quantity is both highly significant, and disproportionate to how livestock represents only 1.5% of global GDP. The report also describes the contribution of the meat industry to land degradation, water scarcity, and diminishing biodiversity. A summary of the report is also available.
Largely because of farming animals for meat, global concentrations of methane have more than doubled since the pre-industrial period. While those concentrations are still much lower than those of carbon dioxide, methane has 21 times more effect per unit volume. This seems unlikely to slow down any time soon, since global meat consumption has increased five-fold since 1950, and the rising GDP of many populous countries seems destined to perpetuate that trend.
Perhaps public figures hoping to show that they are serious about global warming should embrace vegetarianism or veganism instead of hybrid cars. While it is good that Canada’s Food Guide to Healthy Eating has been changed to list “Meat and Alternatives” as one of the four food groups, perhaps they should be more aggressively promoting a meat-free lifestyle; it is almost certainly healthier, and makes ethical and environmental sense as well.
This sort of reading often makes me feel that I should take the full leap to becoming vegan. That said, almost all the best things I eat involve milk or eggs. Giving up beef and tuna (with rare sashimi exceptions) was difficult enough. Giving up cheese is practically unthinkable.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
One way or another, it is the methane that is going to get us:
Methane in the Arctic and its Role in Global Climate Change
In a warming climate, carbon and methane trapped in permafrost have a high potential for release into the atmosphere through chemical and biological processes such as thawing. When permafrost thaws and higher levels of CO2 and CH4 are released, atmospheric temperature also increases. This can result in a feedback loop and more permafrost thaw.
Methane fever
“At the end of an epoch of time known as the Paleocene, temperatures in the deep ocean soared by about six degrees Celsius. This worldwide heat wave killed off a plethora of microscopic deep-sea creatures and produced a bizarre spike in the record of carbon isotopes. Five years ago paleoceanographer Gerald (”Jerry”) Dickens of James Cook University in Australia proposed that a belch of seafloor methane-a greenhouse gas with almost 30 times the heattrapping ability of carbon dioxide-caused the shock.”
Oh, and this study is also interesting. It discusses why vegetarianism is healthier. Also, that fish production is apparently as carbon intensive per calorie as meat.
This is quite interesting:
http://www.vattenfall.com/climatemap/
Vattenfall is a Swedish energy company and one of the leading energy producers in Northern Europe.
Vattenfall also has a report specifically on agriculture.
The fact that the meat industry produces a disproportionately high amount of greenhouse gases is not an argument for no-exeption vegetarien diets. Rather, it imposes the demand to make one’s meat - eating incompatible with the meat industry as it exists. However, the simple move to eating organic is not enough. Probably, one needs to buy meat only when you know where the meat is from, and how it is produced. It’s my impression that cattle which graze on large ranches, ignored by their owners for most of the year, are a fairly sustainable form of meat production. Furthermore, since the number of animals that can be supported in this manner is minimal, it would mean an order of magnitude rise in beef prices and less consumption overall.
However, the market can never produce this solution on its own, and probably not even with regulation, because as the price for meat went up, the incentive to cheat the regulations and keep more cattle than is sustainable would rise proportionatly.
Tristan,
I agree that absolute vegetarianism is not a moral requirement. That said, I don’t think there is much meat out there that meets your requirements.
The best solution to the GHG aspect of the problem - in the long term - is probably a system of individual carbon allowances that you can spend on driving, steak, or airline travel according to your preferences.
Gross, but relevant: Big factory pig farms are some of America’s worst polluters
Yeah, The Rolling Stone article upon which that BoingBoing post was based is amazingly sickening.
grass-fed beef is definitely better than most kinds of meat, but it still contributes a lot to global warming because cows are methane-producing machines. the less beef we eat, the better from a climate change perspective.
regardless, i think there’s a strong moral argument to be made that we do not have the right to kill animals.
Food guide for grad students