Will Eating Less Meat Help Stop Climate Change? YES.

Note: Michael submitted this post in response to a recent post and discussion at the Stop Global Warming blog. As I've noted on this blog before, global warming/climate change is an animal rights issue. Animal advocates oppose animal agriculture for ethical reasons, but it is also a major contributor to greenhouse gases, deforestation, habitat loss, pollution, and more--all of which endangers, harms, and kills even more animals. Free-living animals (aka wildlife) are, and will continue, dying off at alarming rates because of climate change and other environmental problems to which animal ag contributes significantly. Killing animals is killing more animals. Finally, I find Michael's arguments (including his numbers) compelling and am glad to present them here. -S. Ernst

Between the deliberate misinformation spread by folks like David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom and the well-intentioned but incorrect claims made by some environmentalists, there is a lot of confusion about something that, frankly, there is no valid debate about.

The worst effects of global warming will not be effectively prevented without a significant reduction in animal product consumption. Period.

I will counter the two most common arguments I hear about this, and I hope the numbers and statistics are not overwhelming. If you are unfamiliar with the concepts of greenhouse gases, climate change, and CO2/CO2 equivalent, please read the Wikipedia article on global warming.

Argument #1: US agriculture contributes a relatively small amount of greenhouse gases, so reducing the environmental impact of our diets is not a priority.

The boldest claim along these lines that I can recall comes from the Center for Consumer Freedom, who used the EPA’s estimate that agriculture accounts for 6% of the US’s carbon footprint (as opposed to the UN’s estimate that animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of emissions worldwide, which may itself be conservative). They further extrapolated that animals account for less than half of that 6%, concluding that animal farming is only responsible for 2.5% of the US’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Martosko says, “U.S. meat production contributes a laughably tiny amount of carbon emissions to the climate-change picture … our domestic livestock operations are far more efficient and environmentally friendly [than other countries’].”

That statement is false on many levels. Martosko’s math included only the methane released by livestock and didn't include the energy used in different areas of meat production and transport, the environmental impact from the livestock’s feed, or the land cleared for pasture. Additionally, he used statistics from the Bush-era, when global warming information was being edited and censored to meet a political agenda. The actual amount of greenhouse gases caused by animal agriculture in the US is disputable, but the figure I find most accurate is that animals account for at least two tons of CO2 equivalent per person per year, which is about 10% of our carbon footprint.

But what’s more important to realize is that regardless of the exact percentage, the number appears small only because of how unfathomably big our country’s impact on the climate is in all sectors--transportation, home utilities, industrial power, and food. Each US citizen is responsible for about 5 times as much CO2 as the average person in the world. Our livestock methods aren’t in any way more environmentally friendly than other countries’--we just have such a grotesquely high impact on the climate in all other sectors that our tremendous impact from animal agriculture appears small in comparison.

The reality is that by year 2050, the world will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 90%. With the expected population increase, this will allow only 0.3 tons of CO2 per person per year, while we currently we emit almost 20 tons per person in the US. This amounts to needing nearly a 99% decrease of greenhouse gas emissions in the US, to be equitable to the rest of the world. When the numbers are laid out this way, it is clear that whether animal agriculture is responsible for half a ton or two tons of CO2 per year (and it may be much more than that), it is far too much.

Argument #2: “Not all meats are produced equally.” Animals can be raised in a way that is eco-friendly, and people can buy local meat to reduce transportation emissions.

Animal agriculture doesn’t have to be as horrible for the earth as it currently is--but it will never be as sustainable as vegan organic farming. It takes far more land and resources to feed people with animals than it does to feed people with the plants directly. In the average American diet, transportation of food from producer to retailer has been shown to account for a mere 4% of a food’s carbon footprint, while over 80% of the impact from food comes from the production itself--primarily from meat and milk. Eating vegan food from anywhere across the world would be less harmful to the earth than eating beef from an animal raised in one's own backyard.

Typical cows (whether for dairy or meat) and pigs are fed huge amounts of grain and soy, and on top of the resources wasted and the resulting greenhouse emissions, the animals produce methane, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Proponents of sustainable animal farming argue that raising animals on pasture allows them to live natural lives, eating grass and fertilizing the area. They even argue that the plants that grow from animal manure will sequester carbon, resulting in an environmental benefit. Unfortunately, there are mixed conclusions from experts about this, with scientists saying that grass-fed cows actually emit more methane--up to 50% more--than their grain-fed counterparts.

Additionally, with so many cows being raised in cold climates that freeze over in the winter, grass-feeding is not a year-round option. Most cows need to be fed grain at certain times of the year, or "grain-finished" at the end of their (brief) lives, resulting in some of the same environmental problems of modern farming methods. Chickens and turkeys have a smaller impact than land mammals, but calorie for calorie, it is better to eat vegetarian.

The question posed by Emily at Change.org wasn’t whether we need to go completely vegan for the environment (though I think we probably do), but whether we need to reduce meat consumption. There is not even a question about it. Even if Martosko’s numbers were true (they aren’t), and even if the best hopes of the sustainable animal agriculture proponents were feasible (they aren’t), we could still not go on eating animal products at the rate that we do.

Raising animals in a supposedly sustainable way would require many times the amount of land than is currently needed. This itself would curb meat consumption considerably, though given the issues with meat from pasture-raised animals, additional deep cuts in animal product consumption would still be needed to have the necessary benefits for the environment. Without cutting our intake of animals, and their milk and eggs, by a good 90% or so, the reduction of greenhouse gases that this earth so desperately needs will not be realized.

I find myself unable to conclude without making a case for veganism. A typical vegan diet emits only 0.14 tons of CO2 per year, compared with 2.19 from an omnivorous diet. Our agriculture system will need to be restructured no matter what we do, so that we can eat organically, seasonally, and locally, but why put more effort and money into changes that will yield smaller results? A vegan diet meets human needs, has only about 10% of the environmental impact of a typical omnivorous diet, and is unquestionably more ethical from the perspective of animal rights.

To receive more information on shifting towards a vegan diet, visit www.vegkit.org.

---
Burning planet image uploaded by spekulator at stock.xchng
"Go Vegan" graphic courtesy Animal Aid