Week 10: Post your Blog Entries as Comments to my Main Post Each Week

Post by Sunday at midnight

1. Mark Whitaker

2. "Meat Creates More than Half of Greenhouse Gases": Another Model (Social Construction) Calls Into Question Previous Models (equally Social Constructions) on Climate

3. If a more accurate framework, it would argue that agriculture and animal raising--instead of industrial pollution--is the largest contributor to CO2 from humans in the atmosphere. Though what scale does the environment itself make CO2 and what percentage of it is anthropogenic? Or is even CO2 the major important chemical involved in climate?

------------------


Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases

Livestock causes far more climate damage than first thought, says a new report

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Sunday, 1 November 2009

Climate change emissions from meat production are far higher than currently estimated, according to a controversial new study that will fuel the debate on whether people should eat fewer animal products to help the environment.

In a paper published by a respected US thinktank, the Worldwatch Institute, two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent.

Related articles

* Graphic: The real climate culprits?

They claim that United Nation's figures have severely underestimated the greenhouse gases caused by tens of billions of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and other animals in three main areas: methane, land use and respiration.

Their findings – which are likely to prompt fierce debate among academics – come amid increasing from climate change experts calls for people to eat less meat.

In the 19-page report, Robert Goodland, a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, a current adviser, suggest that domesticated animals cause 32 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), more than the combined impact of industry and energy. The accepted figure is 18 per cent, taken from a landmark UN report in 2006, Livestock's Long Shadow.

"If this argument is right," write Goodland and Anhang, "it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change.

"In fact, this approach would have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."

Their call to move to meat substitutes accords with the views of the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who has described eating less meat as "the most attractive opportunity" for making immediate changes to climate change.

Lord Stern of Brentford, author of the 2006 review into the economic consequences of global warming, added his name to the call last week, telling a newspaper interviewer: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources."

Scientists are concerned about livestock's exhalation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Cows and other ruminants emit 37 per cent of the world's methane. A study by Nasa scientists published in Science on Friday found that methane has significantly more effect on climate change than previously thought: 33 times more than carbon dioxide, compared with a previous factor of 25.

According to Goodland and Anhang's paper, which has not been peer-reviewed, scientists have significantly underestimated emissions of methane expelled by livestock. They argue that the gas's impact should be calculated over 20 years, in line with its rapid effect – and the latest recommendation from the UN – rather than the 100 years favoured by Livestock's Long Shadow. This, they say, would add a further 5bn tons of CO2e to livestock emissions – 7.9 per cent of global emissions from all sources.

Similarly, they claim that official figures are wrong to ignore CO2 emitted by breathing animals on the basis that it is offset by carbon photosynthesised by their food, arguing the existence of this unnecessary animal-based CO2 amounts to 8.7bn tons of CO2e, 3.7 per cent of total emissions.

On land use, they calculate that returning the land currently used for livestock to natural vegetation and forests would remove 2.6bn tons of CO2e from the atmosphere, 4.2 per cent of greenhouse gas. They also complain that the UN underestimated the amount of livestock, putting it at 21.7bn against NGO estimates of 50bn, adding that numbers have since risen by 12 per cent.

Eating meat rather than plants also requires extra refrigeration and cooking and "expensive" treatment of human diseases arising from livestock..., they say.

One leading expert on climate change and food, Tara Garnett, welcomed Goodland and Anhang's calculations on methane, which she said had credibility, but she questioned other aspects of their work, saying she had no reason to dispute the UN's position on CO2 caused by breathing. She also pointed out that they had changed scientific assumptions for livestock but not for other sources of methane, skewing the figures.

She said: "We are increasingly becoming aware that livestock farming at current scales is a major problem, and that they contribute significantly to greenhouse gases. But livestock farming also yields benefits – there are some areas of land that can’t be used for food crop production. Livestock manure can also contribute to soil fertility, and farm animals provide us with non food goods, such as leather and wool, which would need to be produced by another means, if it wasn’t a byproduct from animal farming.”

While looking into the paper's findings, Friends of the Earth said the report strengthened calls for the Government to act on emissions from meat production. "We already know that the meat and dairy industry causes more climate-changing emissions than all the world's transport," said Clare Oxborrow, senior food campaigner.

"These new figures need further scrutiny but, if they stack up, they provide yet more evidence of the urgent need to fix the food chain. The more damaging elements of the meat and dairy industry are effectively government-sponsored: millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent propping up factory farms and subsidising the import of animal feed that's been grown at the expense of forests."

Justin Kerswell, campaign manager for the vegetarian group Viva!, said: "The case for reducing consumption of meat and dairy products was already imperative based on previous UN findings. Now it appears to have been proven that the environmental devastation from livestock production is in fact staggeringly more significant – and dwarfs the contribution from the transport sector by an even greater margin.

"It is essential that attention is fully focused on the impact of livestock production by all global organisations with the power to affect policy."


Post a Comment LiveJournal
Subject: Message:

View all comments that have been posted about this article. [just a few comments from the thread]

Comments
( Leave a comment )
[info]catherineib wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 12:49 am (UTC)
I'm not usually an annoying smug vegetarian, but after reading this I do feel a little that way inclined!
Link | Reply | Thread
Meat and greenhouse gases
[info]rbtgoodland wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 12:53 am (UTC)
From Robert Goodland: As the Telegraph reports today, my co-author and I have assessed the life cycle and supply chain of meat and dairy products. We have deduced that at least 51% of worldwide human-caused greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are attributable to livestock, and our full report is viewable on Worldwatch's website.

We show that a 25% reduction in livestock products worldwide can be achieved at minimal cost, while yielding at least a 12.5% reduction in human-caused GHGs. This is about as much reduction as is considered possible to achieve in an agreement at the upcoming U.N. conference on climate change in Copenhagen.

The FAO’s prior estimate is based on a simple model of the carbon cycle. However, a virtuous carbon cycle model does not work these days in the real world, which is much more complex. A simple carbon cycle model does not account for the tens of millions of hectares of forest converted in recent decades to grazing land and cropland to feed tens of billions more livestock each year.

In ranching in tropical regions, forest is cut and burned to create new pastures. Soil is depleted in a few years, so then more forest is cut and burned. That, added to by livestock’s breath and other excretions, has resulted in high levels of atmospheric carbon, significantly fuelling climate change.

In responses to Lord Stern, meat and dairy producers claim that their products use grass more efficiently than in tropical regions, and therefore should not be targeted in Copenhagen. However, in British pastures and other temperate regions, large amounts of soil carbon are released over time.

Moreover, while meat and dairy producers do not often reveal this, most British cattle – as elsewhere – graze for the first part of their lives, and then are fed carbon-intensive grains and legumes for the second part. In fact, a majority of the world’s crops become feed for cattle and other livestock.

Feed, meat and dairy products are global commodities, so they get flown, shipped and trucked all over the world. Then British and other tables get laden with highly carbon-inefficient foods. And global warming is trans-boundary, which means that Lord Stern and others must look beyond British borders in considering the impacts of meat and dairy products on climate.

In both tropical and temperate regions, much of the same land used to graze livestock and grow feed could instead regenerate tall grasses and forest, among which -- as well as in the soil beneath – much more carbon could be absorbed and sequestered than in land set aside for grazing and feed.

If regeneration of pasture and forest would occur on a large, global scale, then as much as half of today’s atmospheric carbon could potentially be absorbed. At the same time, many carbon emissions from livestock’s breathing and other excretions could be stopped. Most important, carbon absorption in forest, grasses and soil reclaimed from livestock and feed would be the only feasible way to absorb a significant amount of today’s atmospheric carbon in the near term. This analysis shows why Lord Stern dares to imagine a world where not all land today dedicated to livestock and feed would remain so.

Following submission of our article for publication, we learned that the number of livestock worldwide in 2007 was actually 56 billion, many more than we accounted for in our article. That would raise our estimate of GHGs worldwide attributable to livestock. On the other hand, our article noted that further work remained to be done on producing a reliable estimate of global carbon from methane not attributable to livestock. Once that estimate is available, it would offset some carbon attributable to the new numbers of livestock that we have learned about.

It will not suffice to substitute one meat product with another that has a somewhat lower carbon footprint. Marketing campaigns should pitch meat and dairy substitutes that can be eaten all week long – because they are tasty, economical, easy to prepare, and healthful. Most important, by replacing meat and dairy products with better alternatives, consumers can collectively take a single powerful action to reverse climate change. Action is needed now, before it is too late.
Link | Reply | Thread
Re: Meat and greenhouse gases
[info]reinertorheit wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 01:07 am (UTC)

Thank you for this vitally important and ground-breaking research. Let's hope it puts the misleading information about carbon footprints into context.

...

and another:

the gas emissions allegedly produced from livestock retained for the use of human consumption pails almost into insignifigance, when compared to the gasses produced in the wild by Wildebeest's, variety's of Antelope of which there are many and other great consumers of vegetation. Plus the fact the greatest producer of methane gas can be laid at the door of the trillions and trillions of termites who run amok across the globe.



..

and another:

Now for the farmers and other vested interests backlash. Never mind, we vegetarians will weather the storm, I feel the hand of history...........

and another:

...

Some of our most beautiful countryside rich in nature exists for no other reason
than meat and dairy production. We must resist any attempt to destroy this sustainable and ecologically sound land use.


and another:

...

Concrete manufacture is a major source of CO2 in the atmosphere. Something we could change without causing starvation.

...


---

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/meat-creates-half-
of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html

-----------------------------------------------------


[2]

1. Mark Whitaker

2. Another Post about Historical Environmental Degradation in South America: The Nazca, near the Incan Empire

3. Seems another issue of a short term 'good idea' that led to long term difficulties. The Nazca unravelled their forest they depended upon which contributed to their demise. Interesting article:

-------------------

Why the Nasca's big mistake was to cut down the huarango tree

Clearing key trees left pre-Inca culture exposed to floods and drought

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Monday, 2 November 2009

An ancient huarango tree. The Nasca cut down the keystone species in the desert of Peru's coastal plains to make way for crops

At the height of their power, the Nasca had mastered the craft of weaving elaborate textiles and the art of painting fine, multicoloured pottery. They etched giant figures in the desert that only made sense if seen from the air, and they irrigated their crops with a network of underground aqueducts.

For more than eight centuries, the Nasca culture prospered in the coastal valleys of Peru until its sudden downfall around 600 AD, which many experts put down to the torrential rains and dramatic flooding brought on by one of the worst El Nino events in a millennium.

But a team of archaeologists has now found convincing evidence that this was only part of the story. The researchers believe the decline was self-inflicted and began with the cutting down of a tree that could have protected them from devastating climate change.

Related articles

* Money is the key to the success of Copenhagen
* The unwanted equation: poverty vs climate change

The Nasca, one of the most important of the pre-Inca civilisations of South America, are most famous for the "Nasca Lines", a series of elaborate geoglyphs etched into the desert covering huge areas, depicting animals, deities and geometric shapes.

After the Nasca Lines were discovered by the first passenger flights over the region, some pseudoscience authors suggested that since they could only be seen from above, they must have been made with the help of space aliens. It is now accepted [first time I heard this "accepted, anonymous" thing] that the geoglyphs were created mundanely with long ropes tied to stakes in the ground,...

The Nasca survived in the semi-arid region by building irrigation canals to grow crops such as maize, squash, sweet potato and manioc.

This reliable food supply enabled them to build a relatively sophisticated civilisation based on art and ritual, which nevertheless included the unpleasant practice of collecting severed heads as trophies.

All this came to an abrupt end, according to a new study, because the Nasca made the mistake of cutting down the huarango tree which would have protected them from the El Nino flooding and subsequent soil erosion and drought that turned the lush agricultural land into desert.

"The huarango is a remarkable nitrogen-fixing tree and it was an important source of food, forage, timber and fuel for the people," said David Beresford-Jones, an archaeologist and Nasca expert at the University of Cambridge. "It is the ecological keystone species in the desert zone, enhancing soil fertility and moisture, ameliorating desert extremes in the microclimate beneath its canopy and underpinning the floodplain with one of the deepest root systems of any tree known."

The researchers have excavated the lower Ica Valley of the Nasca domain and found clear evidence that vast swathes of huarango trees had been cut down to make way for crops. Dr Beresford-Jones believes that the Nasca eventually changed the landscape forever. "In time, gradual woodland clearance crossed an ecological threshold, which is sharply defined in such desert environments, exposing the landscape to the region's extraordinary desert winds and the effects of El Nino floods."

The huarango tree plays a "profound role" in preserving the sort of semi-arid environments where the Nasca lived, the scientists say in their study. "Successful agriculture is just not possible here without the protection afforded by trees. Indeed, these findings have undoubted contemporary resonance."

When the El Nino struck, the river [after they cut all the trees, now] cut [deep] into its floodplain, washed away the soil and destroyed the Nasca irrigation systems, making the farmland unworkable. The generations of Nasca that followed suffered higher infant mortalities and lower adult life expectancy.

Eventually, the Nasca capital of Cahuachi was abandoned and all that was left of the culture were archaeological artifacts.

Lost civilisations: Destroyed by nature

*Easter Island

It is thought that the native people felled the majority of the island's trees between 1200 AD and 1500 AD. [Actually, no, the latest bit from Easter Island is the introduced rats species eating the seeds of the emergent palms, and making them unable to grow, then] The loss of palm trees upset the eco-system, driving away wildlife and drying up water supplies.

*Maya

Mayan civilisation stretched across the Yucatan Peninsula until 900 AD when cities were mysteriously abandoned. It is believed that the culture was wiped out by a series of droughts [and human decisions to ignore the issues as elite houses were still being built with ever greater wood and plaster products as the crisis mounted over decades, then these palaces were burned, likely by rebellion that disbelieved in their elites anymore, and habitation ceased to be urban among the Maya.].

---
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/why-the-nascas-big-mistake-
was-to-cut-down-the-huarango-tree-1813180.html