For years, I have suggested that studies conclude that livestock production (not just grazing) is one of the most significant contributors to global climate warming. However, the actual influence of livestock production on climate is obscured due to different accounting methodologies.
In the most recent estimates, atmospheric CO2 level was 51 percent above that of the pre-industrial era. In 2023, CO2 concentrations were at 420 parts per million (ppm), methane at 1,934 parts per billion, and nitrous oxide at 336 parts per billion.
A recent 2023 U.N. study estimates that livestock was responsible for only 6 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet at least one World Watch article suggests that livestock production may contribute to as much as 51% of climate warming.
Other sources conclude that livestock, particularly cattle, are somewhere in between attributing 11 to 20% of all global GHG emissions to livestock.
How can basic facts diverge so much? It all has to do with what is included in the accounting.
A good analogy would be looking at the profit and loss of a business. One can’t just count the money consumers spend on the product as the profit. A company must pay rent, power, employees, insurance, taxes, transportation, and other costs that must be deducted from the overall business income to determine the “profit.”
The U.N. report is a clear example of a narrow definition of livestock climate contributions.
The report measures only direct emissions: the methane released by digestion, manure, and fertilizers associated with livestock farming. Other GHG emissions costs are ignored.
However, other studies include a more complete accounting of what some call the “full lifecycle emissions” of the livestock industry’s climate impact. A lifecycle study includes more than the methane produced by livestock.
For example, expanding cattle pasture land is responsible for 41 percent of tropical deforestation, but deforestation emissions are separate under land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF)). Letting pasture return to forest would store far more carbon than any benefits from so-called “regenerative” agriculture.
Throughout the world, but particularly in tropical areas, forests are cleared to create pasture for cattle. The trees are often burned, releasing carbon into the atmosphere. However, more importantly, trees store carbon. Deforestation of the land to create pasture represents a substantial net loss in carbon storage and releases a large amount of carbon when the forest is burned.
Other costs of the livestock industry include growing feed like alfalfa, corn, and soybeans for CAFO and even “grass-fed” beef. These, in turn, have other unaccounted ecological costs. For instance, throughout the West, the single biggest consumer of water from rivers is irrigation for livestock feed and pasture, degrading aquatic ecosystems.
The livestock industry has censored U.N. reports on livestock emissions and opposes any recommendations that we should shift to “plant-based diets and that meat is beneficial for the environment. The U.S. Food and Nutrition Service recommends that Americans eat less meat and more vegetables and fruit.
The U.N. report obscures the full impact of the livestock industry on climate warming. Yet shifting one’s diet from dairy and red meat to other foods, whether with fruit and vegetables or other meat sources like chickens, rabbits, and geese, could significantly reduce one’s contribution to climate warming.
Overall, less meat is the more sustainable diet choice. As a generalization, plant-based foods tend to have a lower carbon footprint than meat and dairy. In many cases, it has a much smaller footprint.
Leave a Reply