Just to be clear, it is important to reduce all sources of greenhouse gas emissions - oil, coal, natural gas, etc. But that does not mean that we should ignore a cattle farming as a significant source when there are solutions. These are not mutually exclusive. — EricH
They have been saying that we only have 10 years left for the past 40 years. — Agree to Disagree
Part of the reason for this is that people don't understand the real situation and are concentrating on the wrong solutions. — Agree to Disagree
In short, livestock production appears to contribute about 11%–17% of global greenhouse gas emissions, when using the most recent GWP-100 values, though there remains great uncertainty in much of the underlying data such as methane emissions from enteric fermentation, CO2 emissions from grazing land, or land-use change caused by animal agriculture.
1. How does beef production cause greenhouse gas emissions?
The short answer: Through the agricultural production process and through land-use change.
The longer explanation: Cows and other ruminant animals (like goats and sheep) emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas, as they digest grasses and plants. This process is called “enteric fermentation,” and it’s the origin of cows’ burps. Methane is also emitted from manure. Additionally, nitrous oxide, another powerful greenhouse gas, is emitted from ruminant wastes on pastures and chemical fertilizers used on crops produced for cattle feed.
More indirectly but also importantly, rising beef production requires increasing quantities of land. New pastureland is often created by cutting down trees, which releases carbon dioxide stored in forests.
In 2017, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that total annual emissions from beef production, including agricultural production emissions plus land-use change, were about 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010. That means emissions from beef production in 2010 were roughly on par with those of India, and about 7% of total global greenhouse gas emissions that year. Because FAO only modestly accounted for land-use-change emissions, this is a conservative estimate.
Global demand for beef and other ruminant meats continues to grow, rising by 25% between 2000 and 2019. During the first two decades of this century, pastureland expansion was the leading direct driver of deforestation. Continued demand growth will put pressure on forests, biodiversity and the climate. Even after accounting for improvements in beef production efficiency, pastureland could expand by an estimated 400 million hectares, an area of land larger than the size of India, between 2010 and 2050. The resulting deforestation could increase global emissions enough to put the global goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5-2 degrees C (2.7-3.6 degrees F) out of reach.
At COP26, global leaders pledged to reduce methane emissions by 30% and end deforestation by 2030. Addressing beef-related emissions could help countries meet both pledges.
3. Why are some people saying beef production is only a small contributor to emissions?
The short answer: Such estimates commonly leave out land-use impacts, such as cutting down forests to establish new pastureland.
The longer explanation: There are a lot of statistics out there that account for emissions from beef production, but not from associated land-use change. For example, here are three common U.S. estimates:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated total U.S. agricultural emissions in 2019 at only 10% of total U.S. emissions.
A 2019 study in Agricultural Systems estimated emissions from beef production at only 3% of total U.S. emissions.
A 2017 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that removing all animals from U.S. agriculture would reduce U.S. emissions by only 3%.
While all of these estimates account for emissions from U.S. agricultural production, they leave out a crucial element: emissions associated with devoting land to agriculture. An acre of land devoted to food production is often an acre that could store far more carbon if allowed to grow forest or its native vegetation. And when considering the emissions associated with domestic beef production, estimates must look beyond national borders, especially since global beef demand is on the rise.
Because food is a global commodity, what is consumed in one country can drive land use impacts and emissions in another. An increase in U.S. beef consumption, for example, can result in deforestation to make way for pastureland in Latin America. Conversely, a decrease in U.S. beef consumption can avoid deforestation and land-use-change emissions abroad. As another example, U.S. beef exports to China have been growing rapidly since 2020.
When the land-use effects of beef production are accounted for, the GHG impacts associated with the average American-style diet actually comes close to per capita U.S. energy-related emissions. A related analysis found that the average European’s diet-related emissions, when accounting for land-use impacts, are similar to the per capita emissions typically assigned to each European’s consumption of all goods and services, including energy.
whether these emissions are actually a problem. — Agree to Disagree
You obviously haven't read it because it is about emissions from livestock — Agree to Disagree
if livestock numbers stay the same, eventually (in about 12 years), the methane produced by livestock will not contribute additional global warming.
What don't you like about these 2 sources? — Agree to Disagree
Emissions from livestock production are expected to continue rising as the global population nears 10 billion by midcentury and diets shift to incorporate more meat. (Consumption of meat from ruminant animals like cattle is expected to increase by about 90% by 2050.) If current trends for food demand and production continue, emissions from the food system alone would likely push global warming beyond 1.5° C, even if all non-food system emissions were immediately eliminated. Consumption of dairy and meat, particularly from cattle, is expected to account for over half of future warming associated with the food system, with emissions from meat production alone contributing 0.2–0.44°C of warming by the end of the century.
The carbon in fossil fuels accumulated over a long time and has been locked away from the atmosphere for a long time. — Agree to Disagree
Which points can you prove are wrong? — Agree to Disagree
It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows. — Agree to Disagree
Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere. — Agree to Disagree
Go ask 100 people in Walmart; some of them will say that oil came from dead dinosaurs. — BC
I asked Google whether coal is a rock or not and got two answers — BC
Coal and oil can be called fossils, but in fact the original tissues of the organisms are present, albeit transformed. — BC
Mr. Huntsman first began to entertain doubts about climate orthodoxy in the years after he saw Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” “His story was so well laid out, so precise,” Mr. Huntsman says. “At certain times, certain events would happen, certain measurements would be reached.” They didn’t and weren’t. [Actually, they have.]
It wasn’t a sudden “Aha” moment, he says, but he began to think about other dire predictions that had people panicked not long ago. “In the ’70s [here it comes…] we were going into an ice age. Then we went to acid rain—in six or seven years that was going to destroy all the oak trees and pine trees, and New England would be this deforested area. Then the ozone was going to disappear. And then we got to global warming, and we were all going to fry to death.”
It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows. — Agree to Disagree
Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere. — Agree to Disagree
When are people going to realize that industry and governments will not do anything significant unless forced to do so by the people? — Janus
It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows. — Agree to Disagree
They found those who make enough income to be in the top 10 percent of American households are responsible for 40 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The top 1 percent of households accounted for 15 to 17 percent of the nation’s emissions, with investment holdings making up 38 to 42 percent of their emissions.
Then there were “super-emitters” with extremely high overall greenhouse gas emissions, corresponding to about the top 0.1 percent of households. About 15 days of emissions from a super-emitter was equal to a lifetime of emissions for someone in the poorest 10 percent in America.
The team found that the highest emissions linked to income came from White, non-Hispanic homes, and the lowest came from Black households. Emissions peaked until age 45 to 54, and then declined.
Can a centrally planned economy democratically and logically distribute resources, wealth, and labour of the world? — an-salad
fruits of another’s labor — NOS4A2
The second question is the structure of the private ownership, contrasting what we have to co-ops etc. — Judaka
One that I like is this one because each decade is shown in a different color, starting with the 1940's at the bottom and the 2020's at the top as I would expect from a claim of incessant global warming. The very top line is 2023 — magritte
Have a look at how many locations never even get "warm" — Agree to Disagree
The data that I showed people was compiled by scientists/climate scientists. I didn't compile the data. — Agree to Disagree
“Why haven't climate scientists told people about this data?".
A second QUESTION: "Is this data an inconvenient truth?". — Agree to Disagree
Global warming isn't about extremes (but could be possible consequence in certain local situations) but global averages. So that data means zilch. Use this instead: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
As to your earlier comment about fears of an ice age. Here's a nice read: https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/ — Benkei
I didn't say what I thought the data means. I just asked, "What do people think that this data means?". — Agree to Disagree
I believe that people need to take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint. — Agree to Disagree
British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.
Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens. Consumers define themselves by what they buy, own, watch – or don’t. Citizens see themselves as part of civil society, as actors in the political system (and by citizen I don’t mean people who hold citizenship status, but those who participate, as noncitizens often do quite powerfully). Too, even personal virtue is made more or less possible by the systems that surround us. If you have solar panels on your roof, it’s because there’s a market and manufacturers for solar and installers and maybe an arrangement with your power company to compensate you for energy you’re putting into the grid. — Mikie
Oil companies just supply us with what we demand. — Agree to Disagree
And neither they, nor your mention of XL and IRA counter the claim Biden was worse than Trump on the environment in any way. — Jack Rogozhin
My claim still stands true — Jack Rogozhin
I do lots of political and social work outside voting. — Jack Rogozhin
Simply declaring you “showed” things is meaningless. You haven’t once showed that. You’ve made statements that it isn’t true. And I see no serious reason to believe it.
— Mikie
I have showed it and showed I did. — Jack Rogozhin
And I see no serious reason to believe it. — Mikie
I have no reason to believe them. — Jack Rogozhin
That’s insane to me. — Mikie
Your thinking otherwise is insane to me. — Jack Rogozhin
Your assessment is just ridiculous. — Mikie
Your assessments have been ridiclous, not mine — Jack Rogozhin
Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens.