Two
studies on meat & climate change, taking opposite positions
By Will Collette
Two recent reports, both out of esteemed academic institutions in Europe, came out almost back to back. They deal with one of the important subparts of the climate change debate: the role of agriculture and animal husbandry in contributing to climate change.
The argument centers on the ethics of eating meat and whether meat-eaters are creating demand for foods that inevitably put a lot of methane into the atmosphere.
One report says eating less meat will help save the planet. The other report says that meat-eating doesn't have much effect on climate change one way or the other.
As a guilty meat-eater, I've been following this subject closely. And I present you with articles on both studies so you can see the pro and con arguments laid out so you can form your own judgments.
SPECIAL
REPORT / The overconsumption of meat will inevitably push
global temperatures to dangerous levels, a recent study has warned, urging
reluctant governments to take action.
The
world's rapidly expanding population is posing a huge challenge to farmers. A report
published in November 2015 by Chatham House, and the Glasgow University Media
Group, examined the interconnection between meat and dairy consumption with
climate change.
Nearly
one-third of the world's cultivated land is being used to grow animal feed. In
the EU alone, 45% of wheat production is used for this purpose, with 30% of
overall use met by imports.
On
a global level, problems associated with rising meat consumption are only
expected to get worse.
"Global
consumption of meat is forecast to increase 76% on recent levels by
mid-century.
A ‘protein transition’ is playing out across the developing world: as incomes rise, consumption of meat is increasing," says the Chatham House report.
While demand for meat in the developed world has reached a plateau, consumption there has stabilised at a level which is considered "excessive", the report warns.
A ‘protein transition’ is playing out across the developing world: as incomes rise, consumption of meat is increasing," says the Chatham House report.
While demand for meat in the developed world has reached a plateau, consumption there has stabilised at a level which is considered "excessive", the report warns.
This
will make it more difficult to meet the UN goal of limiting global temperature
increases below 2°C, compared to pre-industrial levels.
“This
is not sustainable. A growing global population cannot converge on
developed-country levels of meat consumption without huge social and
environmental cost […] Livestock production is often a highly inefficient
use of scarce land and water. It is a principal driver of deforestation,
habitat destruction and species loss,” the report reads.
America
is the world champion
The
world champion of meat consumption is the United States. Every American
consumes about 250g of meat per day on average while an Indian will eat less
than 10g.
In
Europe, Germany finds itself topping the European table in terms of meat
consumption—along with Denmark, Spain and Portugal. According to a report by
the Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, 83% of
respondents said they eat meat several times a week.
Adrian
Bebb, a senior Food Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, told EurActiv:
"The mass production of meat impacts upon the lives of people around the
world, on the environment, biodiversity and the climate. Sustainable
alternatives exist and need to be given higher priority on the public agenda.
What we eat is no longer a private matter."
How
agriculture affects climate change
Farming
contributes to 10% of the total EU's greenhouse gas emissions, mainly by
producing two powerful greenhouse gases: Methane (CH4) - from livestock
digestion processes and stored animal manure, and nitrous oxide (N2O) -
from organic and mineral nitrogen fertilisers.
“Agriculture
is a significant source of greenhouse gases; but it can also play an important
role in helping to fight climate change, by acting as a sink and storing carbon
in the soil organic matter and in biomass,” an EU Commission Spokesperson told
EurActiv.
According to
the European Environment Agency (EEA), the consumption of meat
and dairy products contributed close to 25% of the environmental impacts from
the total consumption of all goods and services in the EU-27.
For
example, producing 1kg of beef requires 617 liters of water, a measurement
known as the blue water
footprint.
As
far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned, the production of livestock and
fodder globally generates more than 3 billion tonnes each of carbon dioxide
equivalent.
In
2014, according to Eurostat data, Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom
had the highest number of livestock. The largest number of pigs was recorded in
Germany and Spain (28.3 and 26.6 million heads respectively), cows in
France (19.3 million heads) and sheep (23.0 million heads) in the
United Kingdom.
Governments
called to action
Governments
have so far been reluctant to act for fear of a consumer and public opinion
backlash.
But
the Chatham House report says that risk may have been overestimated. It
recommends building the case for government intervention with awareness-raising
campaigns at national level linking environmental goals with other policy
objectives such as managing healthcare costs.
"Messages
should focus on the co-benefits of reduced consumption," the report
stresses. Engaging with "mainstream media"
and "non-partisan experts such as scientists" is seen as key in
this respect.
On
the policy level, the report says shifting diets will
require "comprehensive strategies" combining the promotion of
non-meat alternatives at supermakets with other initiatives to prop up the
price of meat.
These
include the "removal of direct or indirect subsidies to the livestock
sector", subsidising plant-based alternatives, or "interventions
to increase the price of meat and other unsustainable products, such as a
carbon tax."
"Government
capacity to influence diets is expanding and publics are becoming increasingly
accepting of the role of government in this area," the report concludes.
And now, something completely different....
Reduced meat consumption might not lower greenhouse gas
emissions from a major beef producing region, research shows.And now, something completely different....
University of Edinburg
According to research by University researchers, Scotland’s Rural
College and Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, reducing beef
production in the Brazilian Cerrado could increase global greenhouse gas
emissions.
Brazilian grasslands
While grasslands are not as effective as forests at storing
carbon, Brazilian grass - mostly Brachiaria genus - has a greater capacity to
do so than grass found in Europe, owing to its long roots.
High quality grasslands will cause more carbon to be stored in the soil, which will lead to a decrease in CO2 emissions.
Grassland improvement involves chemical and mechanical treatment
of the soil, and use of better adapted seeds along with calcium, limestone and
nitrogen fertilisers.
Most Brazilian grassland soils are acidic, requiring little
nitrogen.
Meat consumption
In the case of the Brazilian Cerrado, reduced meat consumption
could remove the incentive for grassland improvement and therefore lead to
higher emissions.
The researchers worked out that if demand for beef is 30 per cent
higher by 2030 compared with current estimates, net emissions would decrease by
10 per cent.
Reducing demand by 30 per cent would lead to 9 per cent higher
emissions, provided the deforestation rates are not altered by a higher demand.
However, if deforestation rates increase along with demand,
emissions could increase by as much as 60 per cent.
The findings were published in the journal Nature
Climate Change.