Humans' Beef With Livestock: A Warmer Planet

American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.

Brad Knickerbocker
Christian Science Monitor
Tuesday, February 20, 2007

As Congress begins to tackle the causes and cures of global warming, the action focuses on gas-guzzling vehicles and coal-fired power plants, not on lowly bovines.

Yet livestock are a major emitter of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. And as meat becomes a growing mainstay of human diet around the world, changing what we eat may prove as hard as changing what we drive.

It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Methane could become a greater problem if the permafrost in northern latitudes thaws with increasing temperatures, releasing the gas now trapped below decaying vegetation. What's more certain is that emissions of these gases can spike as humans consume more livestock products.

As prosperity increased around the world in recent decades, the number of people eating meat (and the amount one eats every year) has risen steadily. Between 1970 and 2002, annual per capita meat consumption in developing countries rose from 11 kilograms (24 lbs.) to 29 kilograms (64 lbs.), according to the FAO. (In developed countries, the comparable figures were 65 kilos and 80 kilos.) As population increased, total meat consumption in the developing world grew nearly five-fold over that period.

Beyond that, annual global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tons at the beginning of the decade to 465 million tons in 2050. This makes livestock the fastest growing sector of global agriculture.

Animal-rights activists and those advocating vegetarianism have been quick to pick up on the implications of the FAO report.

"Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products," writes Noam Mohr in a report for EarthSave International.

Changing one's diet can lower greenhouse gas emissions quicker than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies, Mr. Mohr writes, because the turnover rate for farm animals is shorter than that for cars and power plants.

"Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today," he writes. "Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth."

Researchers at the University of Chicago compared the global warming impact of meat eaters with that of vegetarians and found that the average American diet – including all food processing steps – results in the annual production of an extra 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (in the form of all greenhouse gases) compared to a no-meat diet. Researchers Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin concluded that dietary changes could make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly one ton a year.

"It doesn't have to be all the way to the extreme end of vegan," says Dr. Eshel, whose family raised beef cattle in Israel. "If you simply cut down from two burgers a week to one, you've already made a substantial difference."

Huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep the US in burgers...which means that the carbon stored in those forests is also released into the atmosphere. Those rain forests are the lungs of the world and their destruction is a disaster.

Nothing in this article is new news. This was one of the factors that made me become a vegetarian over 16 years ago.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep the US in burgers.

How do you figure that? In 2006 the US was the main buyer of industrialized cattle beef from Brazil, at $165 million (97,000 tons), but that is a vanishingly small percentage of the total US beef industry for the year (about 0.2%). By all current indications, that percentage is holding true for 2007.

More to the point, the US has been significantly absent in consumption of Brazilian beef exports and, indeed, European markets (including Great Britan) are the largest importers of Brazilian beef, both grass fed and industrialized (feedlot grown). By the way, the vast majority off Brazilian beef is grass fed.

So, more accurately, huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep Europe in beef.

Huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep the US in burgers.

How do you figure that? In 2006 the US was the main buyer of industrialized cattle beef from Brazil, at $165 million (97,000 tons), but that is a vanishingly small percentage of the total US beef industry for the year (about 0.2%). By all current indications, that percentage is holding true for 2007.

More to the point, the US has been significantly absent in consumption of Brazilian beef exports and, indeed, European markets (including Great Britan) are the largest importers of Brazilian beef, both grass fed and industrialized (feedlot grown). By the way, the vast majority off Brazilian beef is grass fed.

So, more accurately, huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep Europe in beef.

They also were cut down so I could build a cool hardwood deck.

---

Huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep the US in burgers.

How do you figure that? In 2006 the US was the main buyer of industrialized cattle beef from Brazil, at $165 million (97,000 tons), but that is a vanishingly small percentage of the total US beef industry for the year (about 0.2%). By all current indications, that percentage is holding true for 2007.

More to the point, the US has been significantly absent in consumption of Brazilian beef exports and, indeed, European markets (including Great Britan) are the largest importers of Brazilian beef, both grass fed and industrialized (feedlot grown). By the way, the vast majority off Brazilian beef is grass fed.

So, more accurately, huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep Europe in beef.

They also were cut down so I could build a cool hardwood deck.

Post a pic! I'm always interested in pretty wood projects.

Huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep the US in burgers.

How do you figure that? In 2006 the US was the main buyer of industrialized cattle beef from Brazil, at $165 million (97,000 tons), but that is a vanishingly small percentage of the total US beef industry for the year (about 0.2%). By all current indications, that percentage is holding true for 2007.

More to the point, the US has been significantly absent in consumption of Brazilian beef exports and, indeed, European markets (including Great Britan) are the largest importers of Brazilian beef, both grass fed and industrialized (feedlot grown). By the way, the vast majority off Brazilian beef is grass fed.

So, more accurately, huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep Europe in beef.

They also were cut down so I could build a cool hardwood deck.

Post a pic! I'm always interested in pretty wood projects.

It looks like teak and doesn't quite float in water. I got tired of replacing my pine decks. I figured they wouldn't miss a few 500 year old trees for a good cause.....

---

Hi Ziggy:

In regard to the article you posted “Humans' Beef with Livestock: A Warmer Planet”, I would like to point out that cattle as all living things on this planet are part of the existing Carbon Cycle. By eating more or less beef has absolutely “ZERO” net effect on the amount of CO2 or methane in the Carbon Cycle.

I wonder if anyone has figured out how much CO2 and methane 6.5 billion humans contribute to the equation. Probably a lot more than poor old Betsy.

Franz

Hi Ziggy:

In regard to the article you posted “Humans' Beef with Livestock: A Warmer Planet”, I would like to point out that cattle as all living things on this planet are part of the existing Carbon Cycle. By eating more or less beef has absolutely “ZERO” net effect on the amount of CO2 or methane in the Carbon Cycle.

I wonder if anyone has figured out how much CO2 and methane 6.5 billion humans contribute to the equation. Probably a lot more than poor old Betsy.

Franz

Isnt it the methane the cows produce the main problem ?

---

Hi Ziggy:

In regard to the article you posted “Humans' Beef with Livestock: A Warmer Planet”, I would like to point out that cattle as all living things on this planet are part of the existing Carbon Cycle. By eating more or less beef has absolutely “ZERO” net effect on the amount of CO2 or methane in the Carbon Cycle.

I wonder if anyone has figured out how much CO2 and methane 6.5 billion humans contribute to the equation. Probably a lot more than poor old Betsy.

Franz

Eating less beef=less cows. So it will have an effect on the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep the US in burgers.

How do you figure that? In 2006 the US was the main buyer of industrialized cattle beef from Brazil, at $165 million (97,000 tons), but that is a vanishingly small percentage of the total US beef industry for the year (about 0.2%). By all current indications, that percentage is holding true for 2007.

More to the point, the US has been significantly absent in consumption of Brazilian beef exports and, indeed, European markets (including Great Britan) are the largest importers of Brazilian beef, both grass fed and industrialized (feedlot grown). By the way, the vast majority off Brazilian beef is grass fed.

So, more accurately, huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep Europe in beef.

Yes..Europe also imports a lot of Brazilian beef..but the US is still one of the main importers of beef from there.

Here is an interesting article about the Amazon and it's relation to global warming (it's a couple of years old though..but still interesting). Note that the threat to the forest is changing now from beef to Soya since the problems with foot and mouth they had there!! So I guess now I'll have to boycott soya too. :-)

Amazon deforestation slows in Brazil for 2005

---

Reality Internet Personality

Huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep the US in burgers.

How do you figure that? In 2006 the US was the main buyer of industrialized cattle beef from Brazil, at $165 million (97,000 tons), but that is a vanishingly small percentage of the total US beef industry for the year (about 0.2%). By all current indications, that percentage is holding true for 2007.

More to the point, the US has been significantly absent in consumption of Brazilian beef exports and, indeed, European markets (including Great Britan) are the largest importers of Brazilian beef, both grass fed and industrialized (feedlot grown). By the way, the vast majority off Brazilian beef is grass fed.

So, more accurately, huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep Europe in beef.

Yes..Europe also imports a lot of Brazilian beef..but the US is still one of the main importers of beef from there.

Here is an interesting article about the Amazon and it's relation to global warming (it's a couple of years old though..but still interesting). Note that the threat to the forest is changing now from beef to Soya since the problems with foot and mouth they had there!! So I guess now I'll have to boycott soya too. :-)

Amazon deforestation slows in Brazil for 2005

What ? The USA IMPORTS beef ? BEEF ! us ? We have a Kazillion cows (by actual count). We can't eat'um ALL ! Do we ? Do we import wheat and corn ? We suck

---

Huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep the US in burgers.

How do you figure that? In 2006 the US was the main buyer of industrialized cattle beef from Brazil, at $165 million (97,000 tons), but that is a vanishingly small percentage of the total US beef industry for the year (about 0.2%). By all current indications, that percentage is holding true for 2007.

More to the point, the US has been significantly absent in consumption of Brazilian beef exports and, indeed, European markets (including Great Britan) are the largest importers of Brazilian beef, both grass fed and industrialized (feedlot grown). By the way, the vast majority off Brazilian beef is grass fed.

So, more accurately, huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep Europe in beef.

Yes..Europe also imports a lot of Brazilian beef..but the US is still one of the main importers of beef from there.

Here is an interesting article about the Amazon and it's relation to global warming (it's a couple of years old though..but still interesting). Note that the threat to the forest is changing now from beef to Soya since the problems with foot and mouth they had there!! So I guess now I'll have to boycott soya too. :-)

Amazon deforestation slows in Brazil for 2005

What ? The USA IMPORTS beef ? BEEF ! us ? We have a Kazillion cows (by actual count). We can't eat'um ALL ! Do we ? Do we import wheat and corn ? We suck

Yes, the US imports a relatively small amount of beef products from Brazil and Argentina, mostly as tinned beef and hides. But as I said above, this amounts to about 0.2% of the total US beef market. Brazil actually has the largest commercial herd at about 165 million, compared to the US herd of 97 million.

Out of the roughly 7 million metric tons of beef produced by Brazil in 2006, the US consumed 97,000 metric tons, or 1.4%. Let's compare this to Japan (740,000 tons or 10.6%), Russia (730,000 tons or 10.4%), and the European Union (625,000 tons or 8.9%).

Es, you are simply wrong. The US isn't even close to the largest importer of Brazilian beef.

Huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep the US in burgers.

How do you figure that? In 2006 the US was the main buyer of industrialized cattle beef from Brazil, at $165 million (97,000 tons), but that is a vanishingly small percentage of the total US beef industry for the year (about 0.2%). By all current indications, that percentage is holding true for 2007.

More to the point, the US has been significantly absent in consumption of Brazilian beef exports and, indeed, European markets (including Great Britan) are the largest importers of Brazilian beef, both grass fed and industrialized (feedlot grown). By the way, the vast majority off Brazilian beef is grass fed.

So, more accurately, huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest were cut down to feed the large cattle herds needed to keep Europe in beef.

Yes..Europe also imports a lot of Brazilian beef..but the US is still one of the main importers of beef from there.

Here is an interesting article about the Amazon and it's relation to global warming (it's a couple of years old though..but still interesting). Note that the threat to the forest is changing now from beef to Soya since the problems with foot and mouth they had there!! So I guess now I'll have to boycott soya too. :-)

Amazon deforestation slows in Brazil for 2005

What ? The USA IMPORTS beef ? BEEF ! us ? We have a Kazillion cows (by actual count). We can't eat'um ALL ! Do we ? Do we import wheat and corn ? We suck

Yes, the US imports a relatively small amount of beef products from Brazil and Argentina, mostly as tinned beef and hides. But as I said above, this amounts to about 0.2% of the total US beef market. Brazil actually has the largest commercial herd at about 165 million, compared to the US herd of 97 million.

Out of the roughly 7 million metric tons of beef produced by Brazil in 2006, the US consumed 97,000 metric tons, or 1.4%. Let's compare this to Japan (740,000 tons or 10.6%), Russia (730,000 tons or 10.4%), and the European Union (625,000 tons or 8.9%).

Es, you are simply wrong. The US isn't even close to the largest importer of Brazilian beef.

How can I be wrong if that is not what I said? I never said that they were currently the largest importer of Brazillian beef. I said they were one of the main importers.

Why are you fixed on this small aspect of the main argument? If the UK did not import any beef from Brazil there would have been no point in me giving up eating all those years ago would there? Think about it...although at the time America was one of the main importers of Rain forest beef. Europe just didn't eat that many burgers back then.

The US still imports a significant amount of beef from Brazil...also here is some interesting reading about where some of the beef from the Amazon rain forests ended up.

notes from the McDonalds case

---

Reality Internet Personality

How can I be wrong if that is not what I said? I never said that they were currently the largest importer of Brazillian beef. I said they were one of the main importers.

Why are you fixed on this small aspect of the main argument? If the UK did not import any beef from Brazil there would have been no point in me giving up eating all those years ago would there? Think about it...although at the time America was one of the main importers of Rain forest beef. Europe just didn't eat that many burgers back then.

The US still imports a significant amount of beef from Brazil...also here is some interesting reading about where some of the beef from the Amazon rain forests ended up.

notes from the McDonalds case

You can be wrong because the absolute numbers show that the US is not a "main importer". Please read the article you referenced carefully. There is no question that the McDonalds chain at one time used some beef grown in Brazil, and for all I know may still do so. But Es, that happened more than a decade ago.

You can be wrong because the absolute numbers show that the US is not a "main importer". Please read the article you referenced carefully. There is no question that the McDonalds chain at one time used some beef grown in Brazil, and for all I know may still do so. But Es, that happened more than a decade ago.

Yeah I know...that's why I said you were right about that a few posts ago. Did you actually read any thing I said?

However, the US is still buying a substantial amount of beef off Brazil along with the rest of the world (as it says in the 2 year old article I posted). I am not sure what your 'beef' is Bill.

It doesn't really change the main thrust of the argument which was that the loss of the rain forests is a bad thing and that we should all reduce the amount of meat we consume as the cows produce methane rather than oxygen.

I also pointed out that just going vegetarian may not help if you are not careful what you eat as now the rain forests are being cut down to produce soya...(the main importer of which is..you guessed it. The US)

...but well done for so dramatically missing the bits where a) I said you were right and b) missing the entire thrust of the discussion.

---

Reality Internet Personality

...he does that alot.

---

Account frozen...

Proper Education

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Why in the hell is the USA importing beef? Is the government paying them NOT to grow cows ? How about corn or wheat? I thought we fed the world. And we cant even feed ourselves? Not possible

---

Why in the hell is the USA importing beef? Is the government paying them NOT to grow cows ? How about corn or wheat? I thought we fed the world. And we cant even feed ourselves? Not possible

The USA imports a relatively small abount of beef for niche market products such as tinned beef from Argentina, Kobe beef from Japan, very cheap lower quality beef for canned products from Brazil and hides for leather products. Almost no raw beef is imported for market use because most South American beef is grass fed, which results in less fat marbling (the flavor is not as good). But if a market exists for a product some entrepreneurial spirit will get it and sell it for a profit.

...he does that a lot.

Obviously well taught by you know who :-(

Very wise to put that in his own photobucket.

---

me@rescam.org

Leading the way on global warming

By Shirley Horton

Horton represents the 78th Assembly District, which includes portions of San Diego and rural San Diego County as well as the communities of Chula Vista, Lemon Grove and Spring Valley.

February 23, 2007

As the only Assembly Republican to vote for landmark legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions last September, I listened to President Bush's State of the Union address in January with satisfaction, as he called on the American people to join California's fight against global warming and oil dependency. His goal is to reduce U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next 10 years – 20 in 10. The president's plan will help confront climate change, increase the supply of renewable and alternative fuels and reform Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards.

Last year the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made a bold move to reduce greenhouse gases with the passage of AB 32. The mission is to reduce pollution to 2000 emission levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Many of us will not be here to witness the 2050 levels, but for our children and grandchildren, these emission reductions will translate into cleaner air, fewer pollution related health risks, and a stronger economy that won't be tied to the volatilities of markets abroad.

There is no doubt California is leading the United States to fight global warming, and rightfully so, because we also lead the country in harmful emissions output. In 2005, there were more than 24 million vehicles registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles – more than one per licensed driver. In the same year, California cars consumed nearly 16 billion gallons of gas, which is slightly more than Japan – a country with four times the population of California. As the 12th-largest source of global warming emissions in the world, we exceed most entire countries, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

We have an obligation to take responsibility for our actions. Theodore Hesburgh, president emeritus of the University of Notre Dame, once said, “The very essence of leadership is that you have to have vision. You can't blow an uncertain trumpet.” Well, California is beginning to fill the visionary void. As California goes, so goes the nation – and the world. Even China has begun to mirror California's energy policies. Chinese officials understand that it is less expensive to promote energy efficiency than it is to build a coal plant. Now imagine if California were to invent low cost, low carbon fuels, do you think China would want to buy the technologies and use them? One could easily assume so. Remember, China's fuel economy standards for vehicles are double those of the United States.

The governor's transition away from fossil fuels, as economically thorny as some critics make it sound, has new jobs and investors lining up. The University of California, Berkeley estimates the greenhouse gas emissions goals can increase gross state product by about $60 billion and create more than 20,000 new jobs. The low-carbon fuel standard will triple the size of California's renewable fuels market and create more sustainable demand for cleaner fuels. We also lead the nation in clean tech investment, attracting $484 million in venture capital in 2005 alone.

In addition, British oil giant BP announced on Feb. 1 an award of $500 million for “Big Science” research into green energy. BP will fund the Energy Biosciences Institute with a mandate to “perform ground-breaking research aimed at the production of new and cleaner energy” with an initial focus on biofuels for cars and trucks. A large portion of this research – and funding – will be filtered through the University of California Berkeley.

So what does the governor's low-carbon fuel plan accomplish? It tells those California companies that there is a guaranteed market for low-carbon fuels. It tells the distributors and major oil companies that it is time to get serious about non-fossil fuels. OPEC can drop prices all it wants, but it won't extinguish efforts to make alternative fuels because these fuels are guaranteed 10 percent of the California market.

It doesn't matter where you stand on this issue. Whether you feel global warming is a valid theory, or overblown speculation, everyone supports a clean environment that improves our quality of life. We should commend the governor and the many companies including Chevron and ConocoPhilips that want to create alternatives to fossil fuels. As market-based competition steps in, consumers should feel confident that prices at the pump will fall. California should, and will, become the world leader in non-fossil fuels – not by choosing winners – but by setting the rules of the game.

---

me@rescam.org