burger eaters and cows large part of problem
Author:
Nicholas Read
Publication:
Vancouver Sun
Publication Date:
February 10, 2007
CLIMATE CHANGE : Livestock industry blamed for generating about 18% of human-induced greenhouse gases annually in UN report
When it comes to climate change, a subject that often gets lost in the increasingly worrying discussion about melting ice caps and disappearing glaciers are the greenhouse gases emitted by cows and other ruminants used in livestock operations.
In other words, cow farts. And burps.
If you must giggle, now would be a good time to get it over with.
Because, infantile jokes aside, it's no laughing matter.
In fact, it's so serious that it's been taken up by no less than the United Nations. In a report released by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization late last year, ranching and the slaughter of cattle and other animals for meat are blamed for generating an estimated 18 per cent of human-induced greenhouse gases each year.
Most of that is methane, a gas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is 20 times more effective in trapping heat than carbon dioxide, the gas most commonly associated with global warming. Also at issue is nitrous oxide, which is generated by decomposing manure, and is five times more powerful than methane in trapping heat.
Researchers in the department of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago take the problem seriously, too. Last year they compared the relative carbon intensity of a standard vegan diet (that is, a diet free of all animal products, including eggs and dairy products) to a U.S.-style meat-based diet, all the way from production to processing to distribution to cooking to eating.
And what they determined is that the average burger eater emits the equivalent of 1.5 tonnes more CO2 each year than the average vegan. How significant is that? Put it this way, say the same researchers: that's half a tonne more CO2 than that same burger eater would save if he traded in his SUV for a hybrid.
Their conclusion? "These results clearly demonstrate the primary effect of one's dietary choices on one's planetary footprint, an effect comparable in magnitude to the car one chooses to drive." said a final report.
Closer to home, Milind Kandlikar, an assistant professor at the University of B.C.'s Liu Institute for Global Research with a special interest in the environment and technology, calls this is a tricky issue for two reasons.
The first is that these gases are produced by biological systems, which are inherently more complex than mechanical ones and therefore appreciably harder to alter. Second, doing something about them involves changing human behaviour, arguably the most complex biological system of all.
In other words, says Kandlikar: "There is no clear technical fix for this."
Complicating matters further, he says, is that methane and nitrous oxide have a natural place in the ecological cycle, just as carbon dioxide does. Methane is a natural byproduct of decomposing matter in wetlands. The problem now, Kandlikar explains, is that too much of it, again like CO2, is produced anthropogenically – that is, through human interference.
Because remember, he adds, it isn't just western livestock farms that produce methane; eastern rice paddies do, too. In fact, Kandlikar says, anywhere you have standing water, you're going to have methane production.
Nevertheless, there are some problems associated with methane and nitrous oxide production that technology – the oracle looked to most often these days for answers – can address.
Given that methane is also produced in landfills when bacteria degrade the organic materials dumped there, technologies that trap that methane and convert it to electricity are an obvious and effective source of greenhouse-gas reduction, says Kandlikar.
Same thing with nitrous oxide, which is also produced in the manufacture of nylon. Technologies are now available, he says, to trap it and convert it to more benign forms of nitrogen before it's released into the atmosphere.
But when it comes to food systems, there are, he says, no straightforward answers.
"Forcing people to change their diets is hard. Maybe there is a rationale for taxing beef."
That could be why the UN, in alerting the public to its concerns, stopped short of suggesting that more people adopt plant-based diets. Instead it called for technological solutions and changes in farming practices.
Not so animal advocates who, not surprisingly, have grasped this bull by its horns.
"Not eating meat has always been the most effective way to help animals," said Bruce Passmore, farm animal welfare project coordinator for the Vancouver Humane Society. "But now it's clear that avoiding meat is good for the planet as well."
