Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases
Livestock causes far more climate damage than first thought, says a new report
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.
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 such as swine flu, 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."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Reduce your global impact.
Comments
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.
Thank you for this vitally important and ground-breaking research. Let's hope it puts the misleading information about carbon footprints into context.
Carbon Offset is a fraud. It's like going to the swimming pool, pissing in the pool, and then buying Fairtrade biscuits in the Cafeteria after your swim. The answer is not to piss in the pool in the first place, not to salve your conscience without altering your behaviour at all.
than meat and dairy production. We must resist any attempt to destroy this sustainable and ecologically sound land use.
Peter in Wales
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/832
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/832
Nothing about a union of governments attempting to tackle global warming will result in fair policies, to my mind our government must act with considerably more self interest than it has for instance in power generation. If global warming is a real threat then its the likes of America China and India that will have to take the lead not a little country off the coast of Europe.
India is mainly vegetarian because of their religion. China is not mostly vegetarian and as it gets rich, meat consumption is increasing.
Concrete manufacture is a major source of CO2 in the atmosphere. Something we could change without causing starvation.
No one is proposing an alternative for concrete. It is the 2nd most widely used material on the planet.
It's all about the money. Just follow it. and you will come to see for yourself.
http://www.veganorganic.net/index.php?o
It's not just carbon dioxide either:
http://fruityfunday.com/?q=node/29
1. Antibiotic pollution (my grandad died from C. Diff, a 'superbug')
2. Chemical pollution
3. Deforestation and biodiversity
4. Overuse of fresh water
5. Pesticide pollution
It will be very important to keep give our farmland back to nature as we need less of it as people more to a more compassionate lifestyle and cut out eating animals from their diet. We can let the old 'farmland' go back to the woodland it originally was, rather then the highly sprayed, chemical sodden huge grass to feed our unatural, hideous, bulging 'cows'.
It's not just carbon dioxide either:
http://fruityfunday.com/?q=node/29
1. Antibiotic pollution (my grandad died from C. Diff, a 'superbug')
2. Chemical pollution
3. Deforestation and biodiversity
4. Overuse of fresh water
5. Pesticide pollution
It will be very important to keep give our farmland back to nature as we need less of it as people more to a more compassionate lifestyle and cut out eating animals from their diet. We can let the old 'farmland' go back to the woodland it originally was, rather then the highly sprayed, chemical sodden huge grass to feed our unatural, hideous, bulging 'cows'.
A vegetarian driving a hummer
leaves less of a carbon footprint
that a non-vegetarian driving a Prius.
Thank you for an excellent article.
Jennifer Gray Charnoe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/832
I am not smug but I am really angry that I am living on this beautiful planet surrounded by a species that want to destroy it. It is like having house guests that are destroying the home you are trying to preserve for your grandchildren. Face up to it you cannot have a meat/dairy eating environmentalist.
P S I heard on BBC Farming Today they are trying to breed a cow that does not fart so much!! honest, it's the truth. At first I became veggie for the animals I now find it is better for my health and finally it is better for my world. Come and join me.
Methane: Domesticated animals are the mainstay of the poor in third-world economies.
The facts:
1. One acre of rainforest produces more methane than one acre of pasture.
2. One acre of rice fields produce more methane than one acre of pasture.
3. Beef cattle in the developed world produce 120kg of methane per animal per year.
4. For sheep it is 8Kg.
5. For pigs it is 1.5kg.
6. Most of the cattle in the world are reared in developing and third world countries and are reared as working animals.
I am afraid the Climate Alarmists have become increasingly confused over their blame game and what to do about it.
There is also another inconvenient truth - human overpopulation. We are in overshoot and collapse. Adopt, don't breed. Vasectomy is green.
The best way to address this issue is to adopt a plant based (vegan) diet. It's time for a vegan planet. If people want to find out more about veganism, there is plenty on the web and there are wonderful tasty recipes by the thousands. Go vegan. It's good for the planet, for us, and most importantly, it's the morally right thing to do for the 60 billion nonhumans murdered for "food" each year.
Since there's an overpopulation of humans, maybe you should consider eating humans instead since humans are destroying the planet and making it unlivable and a hell for 95% of the planet's population who are nonhumans.
Denying your own evolution is dangerous nonsense. Humans are omnivores. Going vegan is bad for humans, as it leads to smaller growth, ill health and under-developed brains in vegan children.
You wrote: "Al Gore temple of worship"?
lol
Al Gore has never addressed the issue of animal use industries contribution to global warming. He is as much a part of the problem as Green groups who purposefully ignore this issue. It's much easier and popular for Green groups and Al Gore to suggest people ride to work, change a lightbulb and drive a Prius than it is to change their diet.
You wrote : "Prove your theory of overpopulation"
oh please ;) Do your own research. There's plenty of info on the web.
IM SICK OF THIS BS!!!
This climate con is about making people like Al Gore richer, its got nothing to do with saving the planet or helping the third world. The worrying thing is Carbon Taxes will be some sort of Futures market with toxic financial instruments like derivatives or CDOs and we are just seeing how good they were for our economy.
Co2 is not a poison, don't believe me watch 'Jimmys Food Factory Whats in My Sandwich' on BBC iplayer - A tomato farmer in England pumps all his Co2 by product in to his tomato green house.
A) he is able to work in the green house all day with no adverse affects to his health
B) he grows the best tomatoes this side if the English channel.
P.S.
Dear The Independent
Is it not about time you started reporting the truth about climate change, do you really think that this con can be kept up forever?
We actually have to eat even more meat than ever if we really want to lower the gas levels.
the locals have formed a group called Kingwood Common Preservation Group and have an website called www.kingwoodcommonpreservationgroup.co.u