Livestock Responsible for 51% of Emissions, Says Worldwatch Institute

by Katherine Gustafson · 2009-10-21 00:13:00 UTC
Topics:

A new report called "Livestock and Climate Change" identifies livestock as the source of an astronomical 51 percent of human-created greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me say that again: 51 percent. What happened to that manageable number—18 percent—people usually throw around? And who exactly is making these crazy assertions?

The report appears in the November/December issue of Worldwatch Magazine, a publication of Worldwatch Institute, a reputable environmental think tank based in Washington, DC. Its authors are Robert Goodland, former lead environmental adviser at the World Bank Group, and Jeff Anhang, research officer and environmental specialist at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation.

They explain that the 18 percent number you always hear was published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which identified 7,516 million tons of CO2e per year to be attributable to livestock.

FAO came up with this number by adding up the emissions generated by clearing land to graze livestock and grow feed, by raising the livestock and by getting the livestock to the consumer. The study's authors explain that the initial figure undercounts or overlooks 25,048 million tons of CO2e associated with livestock.

According to the report's authors, the original FAO number did not account for important realities of modern meat production such as cows' breathing, the clearcutting of Amazon rainforest for grazing or the entirety of the marine products industry (apparently, up to half of marine organisms caught go to livestock; who knew?).

The authors' analysis reveals that livestock are actually responsible for 32,564 million tons of CO2e, which amounts to 51 percent of total emissions attributable to human activity.

Can it be true? The authors seems to be meticulous, even noting that preparing meat requires longer, hotter cooking, which, in the developing world at least, means burning more charcoal, which puts extra pressure on forests.

But it's still hard to swallow that such a vast amount of greenhouse gases might originate in this one industry. It's even harder to believe their solution is going to take off; they advocate entirely replacing the meat and dairy industries with plant-based substitutes such as soy milk and seitan burgers.

Will Tofurky save us all?

Photo courtesy of Royalty-free image collection on flickr

Katherine Gustafson is a freelance writer and editor with a background in international nonprofit organizations.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Locavorism Isn't Inherently Elitist, But Many Are Excluded
NEXT STORY:
Join the Social Media Day of Action to Rid Girl Scout Cookies of Forest-Destroying Palm Oil

COMMENTS (14)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.