Among the most common questions that follow my presentations of Al Gore's climate change slide show is "What about vegetarianism?" I usually respond that eating less meat will probably be a consequence of climate change, due to the enormous water and energy costs associated with raising livestock, rather than a significant mitigation strategy. But I'm going to reconsider the situation, in the light of this paper in Animal Science Journal.
"Evaluating environmental impacts of the Japanese beef cow-calf system by the life cycle assessment method" (doi: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x) takes a look at the greenhouse gas emissions, among other nasty side-effects, associated with beef. It's not pretty.
The authors, from the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, and Kyoto University, did a thorough job calculating all of the energy inputs:
Lighting the cattle barn, feed preparation and carrying manure out of the barn were taken into account as the work associated with animal management, and environmental loads were calculated from the quantities of fuel and electricity consumed in the work.
At the end of the day, when the abattoir has been tidied up,
... the total contributions of one beef calf throughout its life cycle to global warming, acidification, eutrophication and energy consumption were 4550 kg of CO2 equivalents, 40.1 kg of SO2 equivalents, 7.0 kg of phosphate (PO4) equivalents and 16.1 GJ, respectively.
What does all that mean in terms that you can sell to a news editor? Fortunately, Daniele Fanelli at New Scientist, tells us:
In other words, a kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
The calculations, which are based on standard industrial methods of meat production in Japan, did not include the impact of managing farm infrastructure and transporting the meat, so the total environmental load is higher than the study suggests.
Before anyone jumps to some lifestyle conclusion, this does not mean that we should all become vegetarians for fear of spending the rest of our environmentally responsible lives as hypocrites. There are sources of animal protein that do not entail fossil-fuel use and monstrous amounts of enteric methane production. For example, when I lived in Canada's Northwest Territories, my ecological footprint was probably much lower than it ever will be even though I at plenty of animals. The difference was most of my red meat was caribou, which as a lichen-munching wild creature contributed hardly at all to global warming. And my fish was taken from nearby lakes with a minimum amount of effort.
We can't all live like that. I can't even live like that anymore. But the point is a carnivorous diet is not necessarily a climate-changing evil. It just means that reducing beef consumption is probably going to be a necessary part of mitigating climate change.
Of course, if we don't slow the global warming, we'll all be denied beef thanks the drought conditions that will almost certainly dominate cattle-ranching territories the world over. So either way...
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I already have, mostly, given up beef for health reasons. I eat mostly chicken and fish. I wonder what farming chickens contributes to the greenhouse gas emissions?
Of course, what really matters is the difference between the impact of a kg of beef and the alternatives. I don't doubt that beef is one of the higher-impact choices, but I would be curious to see the difference.
Frances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small Planet around 40 years ago, saying pretty much the same thing the Japanese scientists have now demonstrated to be true. I stopped eating meat around the same time, and have never regretted that decision. But I don't think very many people are going to make a similar decision voluntarily.
Japanese beef production and American beef production are very different. Most japanese beef is Kobe beef which contains up to 30% intramuscular fat. Most American beef is 5% or less intramuscular fat. That difference alone is huge from an energy standpoint. In addition, most American cattle are raised in a pasture setting at least until weaning and sometimes more. In contrast, Japan has very little pasture land, so the cattle are raised in barns (hence the cost of lighting the barns) and the feed is shipped to the barns.
That being said, it is likely that meat consumption will drop to higher prices. also, it is likely that more beef will be locally raised and grass fed. This will result in decreased energy for grain transportation.
I also think that some changes will be made to the definition of organic. Currently, organic regulations prohibit the use of ionophores. Ionophores reduce the amount of methane produced in the rumen about 15% by shifting the microbial populations to more efficient bacteria and fungi.
A lot less of the caloric intake is in form of beef in the case of Japan, as compared to the US. And that goes especially for Kobe beef, which is silly pricey even by this country's standards. When we have steak for dinner at home (and "normal" steak, not Kobe-beef), we buy about 80 grams per person, with most of the meal being rice, vegetables, preserves, soup and so on.
I bet the total footprint of US beef per person is rather higher than that for Japanese beef, simply because so much more is consumed.
It is much more costly to produce meat than vegetables. This is just one other way.
I'd like to see a comparison with Texas range beef depending on geography! Hereabouts the geography runs from "heads per acre" to "acres per head". I suspect that the Kobe beef establishes the "high end" of a continuum that needs definition on the "low". If the LCRA "manure-to-methane" experiment works an additional adjustment factor needs inclusion in the model.