Tofu-eaters please don't gloat
New study claims meat is responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. But let's not forget, soy production is a leading cause of deforestation, a major contributor to GHG emissions.
Sun, Nov 01 2009 at 9:45 PM EST
22
Photos: Kevin Law, Essex/Flickr I will admit that one of my biggest pet peeves is when people quote facts (in tandem with either a physical or implied pointing finger) while lacking a solid grasp of what the numbers underlying those facts actually mean.
As a numbers guy who has been crunching environmental impacts for years (five of which were fueled by a vegetarian diet), this peeve applies particularly to environmentalists who have been working at cross purposes to the movement by creating the perception that sustainability is as a whole impossible for the average American. It tends to produce this result (my handy formula):
(1 weak fact + 1 pointing finger) x # repetitions = anti-green sentiment (squared)
Never has this been more apparent in the environmental footprint terrain of meat consumption. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, even South Park reference the preachy accusations of vegans who tell meat-eaters to drop their favorite grilled meat in favor of substitutes like tofu, tempeh and soy milk.
Now those fingers have a new study to point at which makes the controversial claim that livestock industries are responsible for over 50 percent of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. So before you turn vegan and then run out to purchase the latest model Escalade, let me straighten out a few things...
1. The current accepted figure by the UNEP is that meat production is responsible for 18 percent of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, this from the seminal UN's FAO report Livestock's Long Shadow.
2. The new report authored by former World Bank advisors Jeff Anhang and Robert Goodland is not yet peer-reviewed. It combines all livestock categories -- both dairy and meat. It also includes cattle respiration CO2 which normally was considered carbon-neutral as the cattle eats grass which sequesters CO2. It also uses different metrics for calculating pervasive methane impacts. I'm not saying the report isn't solid, but it needs to be put into context so that we can know if we are comparing apples to apples.
3. Deforestation is widely thought to be responsible for 20-25 percent of GHG emissions, much of which is attributed to soy production. Some deforestation is certainly attributed to the beef industry, but accurate numbers that allocate which forests have been cleared for which use (i.e. beef, timber, mining, ethanol, agriculture, etc) are not available.
4. In the most rapidly deforested state in Brazil, Mato Grosso, as much as 70 percent of newly cleared lands are used to grow soybeans, some of which is fed to cows, some exported as food products, and some used to produce biodiesel. Read more on National Geographic.
5. There is a big, big difference between total global GHG emissions and U.S. GHG emissions. This is important. Americans are the biggest contributors to climate change NOT because they eat meat (though that is a significant contributor -- about 6 percent of total carbon impact according to my calcs) but because they use HUGE quantities of fossil fuels to run their cars (28 percent) and their homes (30 percent).
Every time I hear an American talking about how eliminating meat will save the planet, I have to remind them that though being vegetarian has both health and environmental benefits, it is no carbon panacea. The other thing I have to point out is that there is a big difference in types of meat and how the animals were raised. Grass-fed beef for instance is much less methane-intensive. An EPA report explains:
"Before the 1970s, methane emissions from manure were minimal because the majority of livestock farms in the U.S. were small operations where animals deposited manure in pastures and corrals."
There's also this thing called moderation.
Meat (that isn't pumped with hormones and antibiotics) is healthy in modest quantities. Unfortunately most Americans are gorgers. According to the American Meat Institute (PDF) the typical American consumes about 65 pounds of beef per year (that works out to about 5 quarter-pounders a week).
All of this is to stay that tracking environmental impacts is tricky business, and encouraging others to do so is even tricker, especially if they are BBQ-lovin' meat eaters. Trust me, I've tried many a time.
A good start is to really, really know your numbers. Unfortunately, the numbers are still incredibly difficult to get a hold of and often quickly outdated. To give you an example, the World Resources Institute created this slick graphic which summarized all the sources of global GHG emissions back in 2000:
Livestock was only put at about 5 percent and deforestation at 18 percent. In 2005 the updated their findings and knocked down deforestation to 11 percent only to have two reports the following year disprove both numbers -- Livestock at 18 percent and Deforestation at 20-25 percent. I've yet to see a new comprehensive graphic incorporating the latest data but you can see how complicated a task this is.
I certainly would put reducing meat consumption in the top five actions you can take to significantly reduce your climate impact, but I would advise any preaching vegans out there to make sure and tackle their larger impacts first -- transportation and electricity -- if they want to have a significant carbon footprint reduction to hang their hats on.
Check out Karl's handy chart for a quick breakdown of a typical American's carbon footprint.
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those
providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of
MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies
with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy
of any of their information.
 WorldShares
lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20
points now.Learn More Earn Points
|
Twitter
Stumble
Digg
Share
CLOSE
link:
link:
| Previous Post DIY virtual reality goggles | Next Post Rising ocean levels: Detailed flood maps online |
Comments
Jack M
04/24/2010 00:25 AM
you really managed to out-stupid yourself
Stefan
12/17/2009 01:10 AM
I find it ridiculous that this article is even trying to reprimand people for informing others that our meat industry produces incredible amounts of pollutants and in unhealthy for our environment. The title of the article is not even followed up with any strong arguments against this fact. In fact, it gives the same examples, and only half way through, uses the oh so important word, "moderation." To say that soy bean growth used for tofu is any way near the amount of soy used to feed cattle.... More
Cannibal Lechter
12/02/2009 17:23 PM
They consume corn and soybeans AND they use up fossil fuels in the daily lives. Reducing the number of Vegans would not only ease some of the deforestation but would also lower humanity's overall carbon footprint.
Steve
11/18/2009 07:44 AM
I believe it is better for a lamb to have lived and been eaten than never to have lived at all. The simple fact is if you did away with the eating of meat then the humble sheep, cow, pig and to a lesser extent the goat would all but die out on this planet. If we are not eating them we are not going to be breeding them to eat. And as the most extreme views see even using Milk and Wool as bad for the animals where will these domesticated animals find a home in your Vegan utopia. Simple.... More
Wes
11/24/2009 22:03 PM
LOL that was awesome...great comment Steve...people can get so mean-spirited and vitriolic in these comments sometimes, your humorous comment was refreshing.
LOL @ sheep, cows and pigs will go extinct if we stop eating them :)
thank you for brightening my day
Sam
11/12/2009 11:04 AM
I am a member of the People for Eating of Tasty Animals and I grew up in a farming community. My family hunts and growing up we found that every year we had less wooded areas to hunt and the animals had less areas to live and hide. Why was this happening? Because, as soy based foods and biodiesel become more popular the price of soybeans goes up and farmers clear as much land as they can to produce as much soy as they can. Native grasses produce a lot more Oxygen than soy plants, but if a.... More
TK
11/11/2009 11:54 AM
Well, I'm a vegetarian for the animals first. If being a vegetarian helps the environment that is good, and that seems to be what some people say. However, my priority is the sentient beings life, and as a Buddhist it's my duty to respect these animals and to not cause any harm to them.
Not all people who are vegetarian or vegan do it for health or the environment, so I wouldn't knock all vegans or vegetarians.
The health part or environmental part of being a vegan or.... More
Cortland
11/09/2009 17:16 PM
It is true that much of the soybean and corn produced in the US goes to the meat industry for feed. However, as humans we still need protein in our diets. Soybeans and other protien rich plants would be used to substitue our diets. So, even if the US decided to go meatless we would still have a great deal of pollution due to the shift in agriculture to produce more plant products. Farming, as we know, is a huge contributor to pollution (water, soil, and air). I think that pollution problems.... More
Tye Block
11/05/2009 15:09 PM
How about the slaughter of the poor animals? . What a horrible life!!
VeggieTart
11/05/2009 12:44 PM
As others have said, a hell of a lot of corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. go to feed animals who are raised for food. If more people went vegetarian, fewer soybeans would be grown, and that means less forestation.
Justin
Today 03:15 AM
It's the industrialization of it that's bad. They just need to make it like they used to and people don't need to eat so much of it. You just don't need nearly as much protein as you think. And it's way too cheap as it is.
Doc Wheat
11/02/2009 22:43 PM
Say half of North Americans decided to stop eating meat, or at least beef. The price of beef would plummet. So poor people around the world would be able to eat more meat! And McDonald's(R) would be there to sell it to them. Cutting meat consumption is more complicated that it seems.
Bernard Brown
11/03/2009 10:22 AM
Yes, you would see more people priced into being able to meat, but with the lower prices fewer producers would be willing to produce. When you shift that demand curve back, you land at a lower intersection with the supply curve.
Ian S. Carter
11/02/2009 21:56 PM
You do realize the second major component after corn to animal feed is soybeans, right? This is due to it's high protein content and cheap price, and follows the basic nutritional hierarchy of carbs>proteins>fats. Protein makes up about 20% of feeds. Yeilds vary per location and season, but soybeans average about 40-50 Bushells/acre and corn 160-180/acre, or about 25% that of corn.
Of the field corn grown in the country, about 45% goes to feeding animals, and 20% goes to ethanol.... More
Dina
11/02/2009 18:06 PM
The majority of soy that is grown in the US and South America is to feed animals that humans consume for food. Eating less meat or none, would create less deforestation.
Ian S. Carter
11/02/2009 17:49 PM
You do realize the second major component after corn to animal feed is soybeans, right? This is due to it's high protein content and cheap price, and follows the basic nutritional hierarchy of carbs>proteins>fats.
The US would produce more than enough soy to feed it's vegetarians if it weren't for animal feed, but farmers need a legume to fix nitrogen in between corn cycles assuming they aren't heavily applying nitrogen ferts every year.
ron
11/02/2009 17:33 PM
what is the soy grown for, animals or people? isnt that a little fact youre leaving out? also, the amount of grass fed beef is probably less than 1% of the total of all meat consumed in the US so its laughable to hitch your ride to that wagon.
Karey
11/02/2009 14:37 PM
Bernard-
I don't think the author would disagree with the fundamentals of eating lower in the food chain, and that it does impact land use and carbon emissions. He even says he'd put it in the top 5 actions to take to reduce climate impact.
He's just saying that there are probably bigger fish to fry. Taking out meat and eating more soy, at MOST reduces your carbon footprint by 6%, according to the chart he linked to. Cutting your transportation carbon footprint in half saves 14%.... That's.... More
Karey
11/02/2009 14:32 PM
How many quarter pounders a week?
"According to the American Meat Institute (PDF) the typical American consumes about 65 pounds of beef per year (that works out to about ____ quarter-pounders a week). "
Bernard Brown
11/02/2009 08:21 AM
If your alternative to eating soy products is entirely grass-fed beef, than you might have a small point about the deforestation caused by soy (and you're probably quite wealthy), but since the vast majority of animal products we eat (beef, pork, chicken and eggs) are grown with soy feed, eating lower on the food chain, even soy, results in a net DECREASE of soy grown to feed you.
It can be tricky to get your head around, bu the key point is that a large portion of the feed that.... More
