From Rudy S: Considering the topic and potential consequences, it is apt to say that an overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees- climate change is a reality. theguardian/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/201... And for the skeptics... grist.org/series/skeptics/ This essay will focus on the most cost effective (see below) and likeliest way to halt climate change in the present and buy humanity sufficient amounts of time to get our energy utilization under control. Dr. James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies- “Probably the single action that a person can take...to reduce carbon emissions is vegetarianism. There are many things that people can do to reduce their carbon emissions...if you eat further down on the food chain rather than animals which have produced many greenhouses gases and used much energy in the process of growing that meat...You can actually make a bigger contribution in that way than just about anything.. so that is in terms of individual action is perhaps the best thing that you can do.” Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and head of the IPCC- “I always say that if we eat less meat, you will be healthier and so will the planet. ..We consume far too much meat in this world.” World Watch Institute published a report in 2009 titled Livestock and Climate Change. Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang found that 51% of all anthropomorphic GHG emissions are derived by farming animals. worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf Even citing the lower source for the commodification of animals and how such actions relate to climate change, Livestocks Long Shadow, an article published by the FAO (2006), estimates that 18% of human derived GHG comes from said industries. Then in 2013, the FAO updated the stat to 14.5% of global emissions. That is STILL more emissions than the entire global transportation systems which sits at around 13% of total emissions. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf fao.org/news/story/en/item/197608/icode/ A quick highlight: It is important to note that both Goodland and Anhang are veteran environmental assessment (EA) specialists. On the other hand, not a single author of Livestock’s Long Shadow is an EA specialist. Internationally speaking, it is considered good practice in EA to have any project with substantial environmental impacts, think global livestock and feed production, be critiqued by EA specialists. The following link, written by Goodland, goes further into the fine tuning of the actually GHG emission numbers. chompingclimatechange.org/uploads/8/0/6/9/806926/livestock_an... It is also worth noting that the FAO has collaborated with such agencies as the International Meat Secretariat, International Dairy Federation, and International Egg Commission in an attempt to quantify and assess the carbon footprint of animal products. The chair of this partnership, Frank Mitloehner, has ties with the National Beef Association. The objectivity of self assessment is questionable at best. chompingclimatechange.org/1/post/2012/07/faos-new-parternship... The World Watch Institutes report Is not perfect either. For one, they do not extend the 20 year time frame for methane to sources other than farmed animals. This is a huge flaw. The other points that are often refuted are questionable. The IPCC does not recognize respiration as an “emission.” Goodland and Anhang added this to their calculation and claimed that human intervention has pushed farmed animals numerical limits far beyond a sustainable carrying capacity where photosynthesis can not counterbalance exhalation CO2. Lastly, the potential carbon sink provided by rectified grazing lands is, apparently, also an arguable point. As farmed animals occupy the greatest portion of anthropogenic land use, see below, not taking these numbers into consideration is an oversight. nature/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1755.html A 51% estimate is clearly too high. That being said, 18% is also too low. Whatever the objective number may be, the negative impact of farmed animals on the planets climate is a reality; and a sizable one at that. Continuing with the FAOs report: here is a further breakdown of statistics related to animal farming from another study. Their conclusion is: As the numbers of farm animals reared for meat, egg, and dairy production increase, so do emissions from their production. By 2050, global farm animal production is expected to double from present levels. The environmental impacts of animal agriculture require that governments, international organizations, producers, and consumers focus more attention on the role played by meat, egg, and dairy production. Mitigating and preventing the environmental harms caused by this sector require immediate and substantial changes in regulation, production practices, and consumption patterns. Keep in mind, this study bases most of its figures from the lower estimated FAO study. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/ Take note to the statistic that by 2050 global demand for animal flesh is projected to nearly double. The EHP article above states that 33% of the global land area is used by animal-based industries. According to the International Livestock Research Institute, however, the actual number is 45%. mahider.ilri.org/bitstream/handle/10568/10601/IssueBrief3.pdf In Richard Oppenlanders latest book, Food Choice and Sustainability, he writes the following concerning the land use in the United States: A little over half of all the land comprised by the U.S. is used in agriculture. But an unbelievable 76% of all farmland in the U.S. is used for grazing livestock - 614 million acres in pasture and range, 157 million acres of public land, and 127 million acres in grazed forestland. When the 121 million acres of feed crops (planted in 2012) are factored in, livestock and poultry are using 97% of all land used for agriculture in the U.S. (pg. 306) With such a vast portion of the global land mass being utilized for farmed animals, it is important to question the possibilities of what could be done with the land in question. It is also urgent to realize that, as of 2003, only 1/3 of the world population actually relies on meat as a staple. ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.long With 26.5% of calories in the American diet coming from animal products, the US citizens are one of the top consumers of animal products globally. grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-04-05-american-diet-one-cha... economist/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-chart-17 Let that sink in for a bit: the worlds biggest meat consuming individuals derive less than a third of their calories from animal products, more than 60% of the worlds population relies, primarily, on a plant-based diet, and yet nearly half of the entire world land area is used for farming animals. With consideration to sustainability and resource efficiency, this is a horrific reality. Shifting focus now to specific green house gases and how they relate to global warming, Ill be using a 20 year, as opposed to a 100 year, cycle where these gases are concerned. Why? Because we do not have 100 years to continue the current trends of energy/ resource and farmed animal use. According to Richard Oppenlander, livestock have been shown to produce up to 32 Gt per year (from methane and CO2 production, deforestation, etc.). So, it is possible that we could exceed our atmospheric maximum of 565 Gt by the year 2030, simply from the continued production and consumption of livestock—without the energy sector or any fossil fuel consumption (gas, oil, or coal) even factored into the equation. comfortablyunaware.wordpress/2013/11/05/cop-19-and-climate-ch... On methane: it is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide on a 20 year scale. It also dissipates from the atmosphere in only twelve years, compared to the 100 years it takes CO2. This relatively expedient evacuation shows how reducing anthropogenic CH4 will benefit the exacerbation of global warming more so than an immediate reduction in carbon dioxide, at least in the short term. ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf - pg 212 The current situation calls for immediate action, too. The Earth Policy Institute claims that to preserve food security, there must be a 80% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. earth-policy.org/index.php?%2Fpress_room%2FC68%2F80by2020 Nobel Prize winning atmospheric chemist, Dr. Paul Crutzen has similar views and has stated that [i]n order to be safe, we would have to reduce our carbon emissions by 70% by 2015.” tinyurl/lhr65ck Back to methane. The FAO has estimated that 35-40% of anthropogenic methane emissions are derived from farmed animals. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/ However, a more recent study suggests that methane emissions, in the United States at least, have been underestimated by 50% and that the farmed animal sector could be producing twice as much. usatoday/story/news/nation/2013/11/25/us-methane-emission... Methane may actually be twice as potent as previously expected. Much of the greenhouse gas potential attributed to tropospheric ozone, smog, may actually be a result of methane mixing with other pollutants. nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/methane.html Contrary to currently held dogmas, grass fed cows, in some cases, are actually more detrimental to the environment. For instance, Jeff Anhang, an environmental specialist with the World Banks IFC Environment and Social Development Dept, has stated that these ruminants produce up to 400% more methane than their factory farmed counterparts. The source for his information comes from the following study: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10375217 Washington State University has the difference somewhere around 275% more methane. Also, take note of the contrast between energy, water and land use while examining this source. ext.wsu.edu/pd/documents/WSUFoodMythsDebunked2010.pdf - Slide 15 & 16 After taking into account the CO2 and CO4 emissions present in the atmosphere of 205 countries, one study stated that [b]ased on 2005 emissions, the same hypothetical impact on world 2050 [international natural deficit] could be achieved by decreasing CH4 emissions by 46% as stopping CO2 emissions entirely... Considering that 37% of the anthropogenic methane comes from farmed animals and that this estimate could have been underestimated by 50%, at least in the US, eliminating all farmed animal consumption alone could nearly achieve this goal. Furthermore, this is only with regards to methane. Farmed animals are responsible for more potent GHG as well. pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/10/1308004110 On nitrous oxide: it is 289 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and can last 150 years in the atmosphere. Roughly 40% of global N2O derives from human activity, and only a small portion of that comes directly from farmed animals in the form of manure. The majority of this GHG is emitted as a result of nitrogen fertilizers for crops, 69% in the US. epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html Since 36% of the global calorie production is fed to farmed animals, enough to feed 4 billion people mind you, a sizable chunk of this emission rests on the shoulders of animal agriculture. scidev.net/global/food-security/news/non-food-crops-lock-up-e... It does appear that grazing animals can decrease nitrous oxide. content.time/time/health/article/0,8599,1978464,00.html On black carbon: it is 4,470 times more potent of a green house gas than CO2, yet only lasts a few weeks to months in the atmosphere. igsd.org/docs/BC%20Summary%206July08.pdf Seeing as 42% of human derived black carbon comes from the burning of the savannahs and forests of our planet, which 90% are anthropogenic, and 70-80% of the said forest fires in South America are a result of farmed animal agriculture, whether for grazing or the growing of crops for animal consumption, it is estimated that 35-40% of present black carbon in Antarctica is related to farmed animals. This projection does not include the burnings in Africa. worldpreservationfoundation.org/Downloads/ReducingShorterLive... pg. 6 & 7 Eliminating black carbon would have a drastic, immediate effect on the current climate. As one study points out, [e]liminating all f.f. BC + OM could eliminate 20–45% of net warming (8–18% of total warming before cooling is subtracted out) within 3–5 years if no other change occurred. Reducing CO2 emissions by a third would have the same effect, but after 50–200 years. stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/VIII/fossil/fossil.pdf Eliminating arctic warming promptly is crucial. There is currently stored within the thaw-vulnerable, permafrost soils of the arctic an estimated 1,400 - 1,850 petagrams of organic carbon. To put that into perspective, since 1850, with regards to all fossil-fuel and human activity, only 350 petagrams of carbon have been emitted. thenation/article/177614/coming-instant-planetary-emergency# The financial necessities to halt climate change are also a dilemma. It was originally estimated that it would cost 40 trillion USD to keep the global temperatures from exceeding the 2 degree Celsius increase by 2050. The estimate is now 60 trillion USD. nature/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/499401a.html According to Elke Stehfest et al. 2009, the cost could be reduced by 50% - 20-30 trillion USD- simply by drastically reducing animal consumption. link.springer/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6 newscientist/article/dn16573-eating-less-meat-could-cut-c... In 2012, The World Preservation Foundation found that the savings are more in line with an 80% deduction- a 32-48 trillion USD savings. ijc.cgpublisher/product/pub.185/prod.142 worldpreservationfoundation.org/blog/news/global-warming-can-... The most far reaching action that we can take on an individual level to reverse climate change in the present and near future is to adopt a plant-exclusive diet. Many medical institutions and organizations buttress the viability of such a diet: eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357 mayoclinic/health/vegetarian-diet/HQ01596 nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/vegetariandiet.html choosemyplate.gov/healthy-eating-tips/tips-for-vegetarian.html heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/Vegetarian-... heartandstroke/site/c.ikIQLcMWJtE/b.3484249/k.2F6C/Health... cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryan... dining.harvard.edu/vegvgn diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/planning-meals/meal-planni... pennmedicine.org/encyclopedia/em_DisplayArticle.aspx?gcid=002... my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/prevention/nutrition/food-choices/un... nyp.org/wellness/showDocument.php?contentTypeId=1&contentId=1876&... upmc/healthlibrary/Pages/ADAM.aspxGenContentId=002465&Pro... For more information on how you can start a plant-exclusive diet, check out this resource provided by Kaiser Permanente, the largest HMO in the US. mydoctor.kaiserpermanente.org/ncal/Images/New%20Plant%20Based%20B...
Posted on: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 20:26:38 +0000