What's Our Beef With Climate Change?
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 07.24.07
Meat just keeps on cropping up as a topic on TreeHugger. So what’s our, errm, beef with beef? Well, we’ve already heard about the large carbon footprint of a burger [or should that be hoofprint?], and Lloyd has brought us some pretty unappetizing news of the link between cows and global warming. Now we hear, via a report in The Guardian, of a new study just published in New Scientist magazine showing that eating just one kg (approximately 2.2lbs) of beef creates the equivalent emissions as driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on at home! Unfortunately the true cost of emissions will be even higher than stated, as the study did not include the energy involved in maintaining farm equipment, nor in trucking the meat to market. All is not lost, however, as the scientists believe that significant savings in greenhouse gases can be made:
“The scientists behind the study are calling for a range of measures to reduce the carbon footprint of the industry. These include better waste management and reducing the interval between calving by a month, which the authors say could reduce the environmental impact by nearly 6%. A Swedish study conducted in 2003 claimed that raising organic beef on grass rather than feed, reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 40% and consumed 85% less energy.”
Those wanting to reduce the impact of their meat consumption, but not willing to give it up entirely, could take a look at our posts on making your meat go further, or on grass fed cattle ranching. You can also read more about attempts to reduce methane emissions from cows in our post on using garlic to fight cow farts. ::New Scientist:: via The Guardian::
Okay, not that I don't agree with the basis of this study, beef is a hugely wasteful industry, but these are based on Japanese numbers. Beef in raised in Japan is almost three times the price it is in North America and one can only assume that w/ this increased price comes an increase in resource consumption thus larger carbon footprint. There's probably no other country in the world where producing beef is as energy intensive as Japan. I know w/ Kobe beef they feed the cows beer and massage them everyday (not that massages increase carbon emissions). So this 1kg beef = 3 hours driving number might be a bit skewed for North American applications. It's probably more like 2 1/2 hours, huge difference ;).
It will be interesting to see, in the coming inflationary times, what people will give up first, driving or steaks? I guess you coudl say the first think they'll give up is driving to the steakhouse.
As a post-vegan I hate to say it, but I think it's time for me to just have beef on holidays.
eating just one kg (approximately 2.2lbs) of beef creates the equivalent emissions as driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on at home
Actually, the article claims it's equivalent to driving 160 miles OR leaving on a single 100 watt light bulb for 20 days straight.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, the former activity will put out 160.5 pounds of CO2 and the latter will put out 65.6 pounds. By contrast, the direct emissions attributable to producing 1 kg of beef for human consumption is 17.12 pounds. If one were to assume that is 1/3 the picture (the article claimed "two-thirds of the energy is spent on producing and moving cattle feed"), then you could triple that to 51.36 pounds.
So, it's close to the impact of that light bulb, but not even close to the impact of driving that distance.
Also, if one wants to start crossing sectors and playing the indirect emissions game, one could also start including the whole lifecycle of an automobile, its fuel, the roads and other infrastructure it drives on, and the generally wasteful design of societies buildings and such that are built around cars as the main transportation mode.
If beef cattle produce that much methane how about horses? For the most part in North America we don't eat horse meat. Maybe we should do away with all the horses.
If horses, why not.... You see a pattern here? This topic is such a non-starter why even bother. Personally, I am willing to take the chance on global warming to eat beef. I will give up a lot of stuff to fight global warming, but beef I will not give up. I cycle to work. My 5 year old car has only 20,000k on it most of that from long trips to visit my kids who live quite a distance away.
Many small steps make a journey. If you are this worried about greenhouse gasses, and you should be, making small steps by everyone will do much more than arguing about stopping beef production. It just will not happen.
Thats why I only eat veal. The baby cows don't produce nearly as much methane and live such a short time almost no energy was wasted on them.
Thats why I only eat veal. The baby cows don't produce nearly as much methane and live such a short time almost no energy was wasted on them.
Well all I can say is I need to eat more beef. I am sure this probably will not get posted but I would like a REAL study done which compares this supposed CO2 cost with that of all the work that goes into planting and harvesting veggies and grains. Pretty sure beef will not rate to bad then. Always nice when you can tell part of the story and people believe you.
that is just plain stupid. like he said about the indirect costs game, to all you vegans, vegstables have to be transported the same way beef does.
another idiocy is who cares how much CO2 cows put out, its about net gain in the CO2 atmosphere. tree grows (takes co2 out) tree dies (it goes right back in) it does not matter how much co2 a cow outputs, even if 1 cow outputs the same co2 as a coal burning powerplant, it doesnt realy do anything to global warming. co2 footprints is only important when you have to take c02 from below the earth's surface and put it back into the atmosphere. after that, the only way it gets back is through absortion of the oceans and hopefully back to the seafloor
I prefer to buy my beef from local suppliers and butchers. It cuts down on the "hoofprint" and allows me to continue getting my beef, sometimes at quite a better price than supermarkets, but at a lo better quality. Beef, it's whats for dinner.
From a Nebraskan
gnoble:
Why would a country that uses less emissions per capita than the US cause more emissions per pound of beef? The people involved in the process are *more* efficient, not less.
What would Rip Van Winkle think if he awoke today to hear people agonizing over the 'carbon footprint' of hamburgers?
It makes one wonder what will be the popular follies twenty years hence.
Why would a country that uses less emissions per capita than the US cause more emissions per pound of beef? The people involved in the process are *more* efficient, not less.
General better efficiency does not logically mean specific better efficiency across everything.
Let's take it from the beginning. Energy in some form is always needed in any production process. You'll need energy for eg. planting, harvesting, pesticide production and producing fertilizers.
We can then make a choice whether to feed people or to feed cattle with the crops. If we choose to feed the cattle, then maximally 10% (varies a lot) of the nutritional value in the crops can be won back in meat and 90% of the energy gets lost. Also the amount of energy used at cattle farms could be saved when not consuming animal products.
It's amazing to see people not understanding this and talking about the energy needed for growing veggies.
[quote] that is just plain stupid. like he said about the indirect costs game, to all you vegans, vegstables have to be transported the same way beef does. [/quote]
Quite true, assuming you mean "vegetables". And guess what, the average cow eats 5 pounds of corn and/or soy per pound of flesh you eat. So, for every one pound I eat, you are eating 6.
So What? Is this going to stop anybody eating meat? Wait i know, why don't we kill all the vegans who contribute all the ass gas to the atmosphere?
What a totally stupid study. If some people have it their way we'll be nibbling tree roots.
another idiocy is who cares how much CO2 cows put out, its about net gain in the CO2 atmosphere.
Cow respiration is naturally not included in their numbers. Direct emissions are methane and nitrous oxide. It's the indirect emissions from other sectors (transport etc) as well as sink losses from land use change and the like which lead to whatever net emissions figure they come up with, which is expressed in CO2 equivalent terms. It doesn't mean they're counting cows breathing as an emission.
It is not so much that we eat meat, its how much we eat and how the beef comes to be. Cows are animals, not products! these animals live to die for us. We need to respect thier sacrifice. Eat less of them to decease intensive farming, bring them back to the grasslands and butcher them as humanly as possible. If saying it's beacuse of their Co2 emissions to do that, so be it.
there are many externalies associated with the livestock industry which contribute to cattle's emmission contribution - including range-fire in the West
and that's not the only impact of livestock - grazing is responsible for as much loss of biodiversity (listed & endangered species) as logging and mining combined...
So - whether you think people will stop eating meat or not, it's good to pass the information along and be informed about the choices that we make.
I thought I would check out this blog, hoping to find some like-minded people. As a caring, earth-conscious person who avoids all animal products, I was excited to see this thread.
However, after reading the above comments, I was completely disgusted and disappointed with how ignorant and selfish you all are.
I know I'm not being diplomatic here by any means, and I admit to posting in the heat of the moment...but jeeze louise, GROW UP and think about something other than yourself for once--did you stop and think for a moment about all the other benefits to not eating your beloved steak? How about cruelty? How about your health?
Thank you.
I encourage people to find ways to cut down on their meat consumption, for the health of both their bodies and the environment. When you do eat meat, make it something you do consciously, rather than by default.
However, after reading the above comments, I was completely disgusted and disappointed with how ignorant and selfish you all are.
I know I'm not being diplomatic here by any means, and I admit to posting in the heat of the moment...but jeeze louise, GROW UP and think about something other than yourself for once--did you stop and think for a moment about all the other benefits to not eating your beloved steak? How about cruelty? How about your health?
Get off your high horse. Would you like every detail of your life microanalyzed and criticized? The only ignorance and selfishness comes from people like you who feel they are entitled to judge others without knowing them fully.