Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO 2 from cars

[gulfcoastliberal]

(Not commenting on eating meat, just the consequences of overpopulation)

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO 2 from cars
Source: Copyright 2006, Independent (UK)
Date: December 10, 2006
Byline: Geoffrey Lean

snip

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.
Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=64816

[Stuckinthebush]

1. One of the big reasons my wife went vegan

I'm still hooked on cheese, but she has a great point about cows and their impact on the planet.

She used to quote some statistic about how many acres of land it takes to feed and maintain cattle and how that acreage could support some massive percentage of people through the crops that could be grown there. Sorry...I have misplaced all of that information in my head. Things like the Gilligan's Island theme song continue to push relevant information aside!

[Kali]

8. all that acreage in a low rainfall situation isn't going to grow much

maybe some wiry grass, thorny shrubs and rocks. Cattle are perfectly adapted to produce high quality protein on low quality feed. No crops need to be grown, no forests destroyed to produce high quality beef. The vast majority of the greenhouse gas production associated with cattle production, and the least needed, is land clearing for soy production for livestock feed in the southern hemisphere. Just because "we" waste resources to produce beef does not meant that is the only way.

http://www.eatwild.com/

[Stuckinthebush]

14. Just giving you one of the vegan justifications...

In short, as it stands now, the production of beef is more harmful to the environment and takes more natural resources than does the production of wheat/soy/etc.

Could there be a better way to produce beef? I'm not sure, but if there is, it would be nice to do it because it is a fantasy to believe that the world's population will give up beef.

[kestrel91316]

15. Goats are better adapted than cattle to living on hardscrabble land.

[Kali]

17. and they browse a lot better than most cattle (except longhorns!)

but if they aren't herded, they can be much harder on the plants, and are subject to more predation. The ideal situation from the soil/land standpoint would be a variety of herbivores.

[eppur_se_muova]

28. Unfortunately, goats destroy most vegetation ... look at the Mediterranean & Middle East.

[XemaSab]

31. Isn't most methane emission during "finishing"

when they are fed corn and other less digestible stuff? :shrug:

[Reterr]

23. I am vegan and I agree

:)

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I have this theory that the last Ice Age was ended when

an overpopulation of woolly mammoths arose and then rapidly produced a major climate change with their farts.

[iamjoy]

3. Most People Don't Want To Give Up Meat

It is easy to say let's put in florescent bulbs or make more fuel efficient cars, or have power plants work to reduce emissions. To do this, we aren't really giving up anything or changing our lifestyle to combat global warming.

But ask people to give up meat and well, that's a lot harder to do.

I think this is why a lot of environmental groups choose not to take up this point. My sister is vegan and it bugs her that environmental groups don't make the connection of how eating animal products harms the environment, but it's really just marketing.

Of course, I'm sure the skeptics will point to this as proof that the environmentalists are all hypocrites and use it as an excuse to not to take measures in other areas.

I say we need more controls in other areas so I can still have meat!

[Kali]

10. I find environmental orgs are plenty anti-meat.

I spend a lot of time explaining that there is a big difference between the damage caused by clearing rainforest to raise soy to feed to livestock and the perfectly sustainable way cattle can and are being raised in many places, including by me. Cattle aren't the problem, it's the way they are raised in some places. Like any "tool" it has more to do with the humans using it than the tool itself.

[Kolesar]

30. Vegetarianism is heavily featured in Sierra magazine

[Richard D]

4. If people just . . .

. . . who eat meat just had it a couple times a week and had most of their meals being vegan, they'd be a lot healthier and so would the planet.

[Reterr]

25. True

[hobbit709]

5. And how many of those cows

replaced the bison and the vast herds in Africa who also produced CO2 and methane? Are there really more ruminants now than 200 years ago or has the population of some species risen while others declined.

[mcscajun]

7. Actually, the population overall seems to be the same now

as it was in the 19th Century, when there were 100 million bison in the US. Now, we have about 100 million domestic cattle in the US.

The only difference now is worldwide demand for beef is increasing and so are herds around the world. This is on top of all the other man-made stressors on the environment.

All that said, I may not eat as much beef as I used to, but I would be loath to give it up entirely.

[Kali]

11. it isn't the animals, primarily - its the land clearing

and let's talk about termites, shall we?

[amandabeech]

6. Here or elsewhere, I read that a natural supplement can be given

to cattle to minimize the flatulence. Raising cattle on a grass/hay diet, supplemented with grain, produces much less flatulence than raising cattle on a grain diet.

Also, harnessing the methane from manure turns the methane into carbon dioxide which is 1/20 the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas.

On edit: here in the U.S., and probably in Canada as well, the deer population has exploded--they seem to have figured us and our agriculture and landscaping out. Deer are ungulates like cattle and also produce methane. I wonder how much reduction in methane we would get if we got the deer population under control.

On edit: Those of us in the first world could eat less meat, certainly. However, I agree with those who cite rapid increases in human numbers as a factor in the increase in the population of cattle, and, indeed, all animals used for meat.

[IDemo]

9. Beano? ;)

[Kali]

12. it really isn't about the natural gas production byy cattle - that is just the grab-ya headline

the problem is land clearing and petroleum use in modern ag-business.

[applegrove]

13. I think ranchers in Canada do a better job because their cows grase

wild grass mostly - not as much "feed". From what I understand. Could the footprint be different depending on where the cattle are?

[bloom]

19. I saw a show on factory (cattle) farms in Canada

and they looked just as bad as the ones in the US.

[applegrove]

20. Well - yes. Any processing plant or factory is going to be a hall of horrors.

[bloom]

21. It wasn't about the "processing plant" aspect

It was about having too many cows for an area and how that impacted the neighbors all around - (ruining property values for one thing) and generally how they don't have a reasonable system to manage it.

They are run by people other than the owners of the business who don't give a crap about what these places are like.


These sort of shows tend to be run on things like FSTV - corporate TV does not show this side of things.

[applegrove]

22. Okay - what I meant was if there isn't enough area for the cattle to roam..then it isn't

a farm, it is a factory. Like what they do to chickens. Awful. I hope that is not to be the life of future cattle.

[kestrel91316]

16. I don't think I ate even 5 lb of beef last year. And I LOVE it. But

I am healthier for making it an occasional treat. So's the planet. With that low a level of consumption, it's time I bought grass-fed at Whole Foods rather than the feedlot variety at Ralph's.

[Kali]

18. try this:

http://www.eatwild.com/ Find some like minded freind/nieghbors/family to go in on a quarter or half. I have friends that sell small portion pasture raised at farmers markets...

[Reterr]

24. Glad I am vegan

when I read this kinda stuff =)

[GliderGuider]

26. Considered overall, there's no doubt that cattle are a blight on the planet

Their emissions are primarily methane, which is 20 times as potent a GHG as CO2. The upside (?) of methane, however is that it degrades much faster than CO2. Its atmospheric half-life is about 10 years, compared to 30 to 50 years for CO2. This would seem to be why the excess production of methane is less significant from a GW perspective than CH4. Oh, and when CH4 degrades, guess what it turns into? Good old CO2, with that long half-life. But as the article points out, their contribution to global degradation isn't confined to farts.

There's little value in trying to identify a "worst offender" when it comes to environmental degradation. We know the primary culprits, and we need to work on them all. Since we can't do much about the root cause (an infestation of humans) in the short term, cattle and cars are at the top of my hit list.

[eppur_se_muova]

29. "Hoofed locusts", in the words of Jeremy Rifkin. nt

[Javaman]

27. Why don't they put a capturing device on their rumps?

I'm being sort of tongue in cheek here, but since these poor creatures are nothing more than walking sides of beef (sadly) and genetically grown that way, hooking up their butts to a methane capturing device would be the next step.

A clever ranger would have figured this out long ago.

[Labors of Hercules]

32. Cattle or Gasoline, Either way they originate in Texas,,,

:shrug: