Debunking the Meat vs. Transportation Climate Change Myth

by Daniel Bailey
(Michigan, United States)

Top Sources of Greenhouse Gases by Climate Reality

Top Sources of Greenhouse Gases by Climate Reality

This article doesn't cite ANY sources at all for its claims. NONE. ZERO.

What does the best-available evidence say? Let's look at the evidence, not just opinions.

The Evidence

Per the EPA, total GHG contributions from agriculture, which includes all emissions from meat production, represent but 8.7% of the total (with transportation totaling 27.3% and electricity generation totaling 30.8%):


Food systems contribute 19%–29% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, releasing 9,800–16,900 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2008. Agricultural production, including indirect emissions associated with land-cover change, contributes 80%–86% of total food system emissions, with significant regional variation.



Going vegetarian could cut out perhaps 25 per cent of your diet-related emissions.


It is likely that reductions in meat consumption would lead to reductions in dietary GHG emissions.


Per scientist Ken Caldeira, direct emissions from beef is roughly 10 times worse that pork, chicken, etc. (If you include emissions from cutting down forests to raise meat, the ratio could go down to 5).

FAO vs. EPA

FYI, the FAO uses an undocumented accounting methodology to support its claims, as compared to those of the EPA, which is documented. As such, the onus is on the FAO to resolve the discrepancies between its claims and those publicly documented by the EPA.

Gavin at RC gives much the same summary in his responses to Geoff Bacon (comment 79) and Joseph O'Sullivan (comment 81), here:

Response: the worldwatch report is the one with the problems. This came up a few years ago when it was published, and the errors involve double counting, including things that are actually carbon neutral, and some large over-estimates of individual terms. But in any attribution excercise, there are many different ways of slicing things and many of the comparisons that are made are down using inconsistent accountings (ie using full life cycle analysis vs not), and so many of the headlines are a little misleading at face value.


Deforestation Claims

Regarding deforestation claims, given that the IPCC cites the EPA, here's the EPA numbers:

Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (17% of 2004 global greenhouse gas emissions) - Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily include carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from deforestation, land clearing for agriculture, and fires or decay of peat soils. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 that is removed is subject to large uncertainty, although recent estimates indicate that on a global scale, ecosystems on land remove about twice as much CO2 as is lost by deforestation.


And:

Transportation (13% of 2004 global greenhouse gas emissions) - Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily involve fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation. Almost all (95%) of the world's transportation energy comes from petroleum-based fuels, largely gasoline and diesel.




Other Factors to be Considered

So, factoring in regrowth, the land-based ecosystems serve as a net SINK, not a source, of carbon dioxide. Curiously, the accounting procedures leave out this inconvenient figure.

Here's even more current data, from the UCUSA (data through 2010/2012):

The most reasonable current estimate for the percentage of emissions that come from tropical deforestation is 10 percent.


The Conclusion

So actually the meat industry emits greenhouse gases less than transportation. And still not reflecting the uptake (sink) factors due to regrowth mentioned above.

Further:

It is obviously to someone’s benefit to make meat eating and livestock raising an easily attacked straw man (with the enthusiastic help of vegetarian groups) in order to cover up the singular contribution of the only new sources of carbon — burning the stored carbon in fossil fuels and to a small extent making cement (both of which release carbon from long term storage) — as the reason for increased greenhouse gasses in the modern era.


And

If cattle flatulence on a natural grazing diet were a problem, heat would have been trapped a 1000 years ago when, for example, there were 70 million buffalo in North America not to mention innumerable deer, antelope, moose, elk, caribou, and so on all eating vegetation and in turn being eaten by native Americans, wolves, mountain lions, etc.


And

Targeting livestock as a smoke screen in the climate change controversy is a very mistaken path to take since it results in hiding our inability to deal with the real causes. When people are fooled into ignorantly condemning the straw man of meat eating, who I suspect has been set up for them by the fossil fuel industry, I am appalled by how easily human beings allow themselves to be deluded by their corporate masters.


Comments for Debunking the Meat vs. Transportation Climate Change Myth

Average Rating starstarstarstarstar

Click here to add your own comments

Oct 25, 2015
Rating
starstarstarstarstar
The Guardian writes reliable articles.
by: Not convinced by quotes above

This article is a little better than the one I read above.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/12/a-leading-cause-of-climate-change-that-no-one-is-talking-about/

The Guardian is also reliable

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/03/eating-less-meat-curb-climate-change

Oct 24, 2015
Rating
starstarstarstarstar
Lots of Cattle
by: Anonymous

Worldwide about 1.5 Billion cows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Population) eating lots of grain etc. and belching/farting have a serious impact upon our biosphere. We do not need these domestic creatures for human survival. Let me guess...the author of this piece loves his/her steak? Carry on...

Jun 02, 2015
Rating
starstarstarstarstar
Useful
by: Peter

Thanks Daniel, highly useful - this is going to be getting linked in all over the show.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Contributions.


Return to Top of Page  

Like This Page?



Recent Articles

  1. Interview With Jonah Bryson: "If we fail to protect the environment, nothing else matters"

    Nov 07, 16 12:21 AM

    We had the chance to speak with Film Director, Musician and Conservationist Jonah Bryson during TIFF 2016. Bryson has directed “The Fight For Bala”, a

    Read More

  2. Climate is Back

    Nov 07, 16 12:19 AM

    As I engage relentlessly in the fight to mobilize a complacent public and encourage reluctant politicians to focus on climate change action, I’ve come

    Read More

  3. Politicians Need to Break Free From Fossil Fuels

    Nov 06, 16 11:39 PM

    It’s time to break free from fossil fuels! It’s not time to promote pipelines and expand tar sands production in an attempt to create short-term jobs.

    Read More

  4. The Tides They Are A Changin'

    Nov 06, 16 11:18 PM

    We are really screwing up the Earth, and not having another one handy we need to get the message out to change our ways before it's too late. We cannot

    Read More

  5. Dying for Your Planet

    Oct 30, 16 02:51 PM

    Have you ever thought about what you value so much that you'd be willing to die for? What immediately comes to my mind is that I would do anything to keep

    Read More





Alternative Energy

Causes

Effects

Evidence

Facts

FAQ

Glossary

History

How to Help

Quotes

Important News

Sign a Petition!