Animals raised for food cause more greenhouse gases than ...

[eilis]

Animals raised for food cause more greenhouse gases than all transport combined!

http://www.biteglobalwarming.org/unreport.htm

Livestock a major threat to environment
Remedies urgently needed

UNITED NATIONS FAO NEWS RELEASE (Rome, November 29, 2006)

Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

Surprise!

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.

[claireandaisy]

This stastistic has always bothered me. I mean, when you consider that in the past there were vast herds of buffalo roaming the plains, huge herds of reindeer, wildebeest etc. I can`t see that there could be more animals now than in the past.
I think what they should look at is the reduction in green spaces, forests and wilderness.
I believe it`s the disturbance of the eco-system that has caused the build-up of greenhouse gases, and slaughtering half of the grazing animals won`t solve it.

[pangurban]

I agree with you Clairandaisy. What if we did do away with all farm animals, and turned all the grazing land over to the production of cereals and veg, have you thought about how much fertilizer and chemicals are going to be put into the land? It will run into many tons. Eventually these chemicals will leech into the water supply and from there into us. There is no simple answer and just getting rid of farm animals is IMHO not the answer.

[Aelfarh]

It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

The solution... massive extermination of all ruminants of this planet!!....

[pangurban]

It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

The solution... massive extermination of all ruminants of this planet!!....

Or a massive extermination of humans who either eat said ruminants or any of the by products they produce

[Aelfarh]

Or a massive extermination of humans who either eat said ruminants or any of the by products they produce

Why not both...that would result in cleaner air for all

Now seriously that all methane produced by the manure could be used and not just wasted, and manure also can be used as compost

[Aylyn]

And while we are at it, let's get rid of all the rice fields as well....

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/AG/ricecult.html

Quite frankly, the only solution is to reduce the number of humans...

[Aelfarh]

No rice, no meat.... I think it's time to introduce the Soylent Green biscuits....


A little more on methane recovery from manure... HEREand in more detail HERE

[Bracken]

Hi all.

Is ellis saying the existence of the animals is to blame or the farming of the animals?

[Aylyn]

Technically, it is the manure and the intestinal gases that cause the problem. Therefore, it makes no difference whether the animals are farmed or wild. Where there are many in close proximity, the problem is worse, but in general, it is the overall number. Granted, cows have prospered a lot under human care, so there are probably more around than before, but Claire is right: Whether we have buffalo herds or Holstein herds makes not really a difference...

I think it is just the overall impact: Even if cows produce more greenhouse gases than cars, without cars, Earth could probably deal with it. So we have a choice: Give up cars, or give up cows and rice

[pangurban]

Hi all.

Is ellis saying the existence of the animals is to blame or the farming of the animals?

It does not matter as the answer is the same in the long run. If you agree with the article then the animal is the problem so the animal has to go, which will happen if we all turn vegetarian the alternative touted as the answer by a lot of people, no farmer will keep animals unless for profit. Of course you would then have the knock on effects that go with the alternative of intensive cereal crops. The first thing to go would be hedgerows as who needs all these pesky hedges at the edges of fields as they only make it hard to drive the combine harvesters. Then there is erosion of the same fields by rain washing out the needed chemicals from the ground which then have to be replaced, so out comes the bags of chemical fertilisers by the ton,which are then washed out in their turn in a viscous cycle.Not to mention the water shortage caused as the water table would not fill as the water washes away all the time. We have managed for centuries on a mixed agricultural farming policy in the UK and I see no reason why we need to change it just use it more responsibly. I always think when I see reports like these where the money for them comes from? Who is backing the scientists who do these reports, are they as unbiased as they seem.

[Aelfarh]

Agree with Aylyn and Pangurban; it really makes not difference at the end, and the solution is not becoming vegans (not even vegetarian since milk, cheese, etc. will need farm animals) first at all because that is really unrealistic to happen, man has consume meat from thousands of years, is part of it´s nature and that hardly is going to change...second, because agriculture produce more emissions than farming and it not only produces methan the agriculture soil produces NOx also.. and all the other factors pangurban mention.

From the EPA 430-R-06-003

The agricultural sector is the largest contributor (59 percent in 1990; 57 percent in 2020) to global
emissions of non-CO2 emissions. In 1990, the agricultural sector accounted for 5,223 MTCO2eq of GHG
emissions. The sector is dominated by nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils and methane from
enteric fermentation, which constitute 38 percent and 34 percent, respectively, of all agricultural
emissions in 1990, as illustrated in Exhibit 5-1. Emissions from agricultural soils are projected to increase
by more than 46 percent by 2020, with its share of the sector’s total emissions growing to 40 percent.
Enteric fermentation emissions are expected to grow by 32 percent from 1990 to 2020, but its relative
share of agricultural emissions will remain approximately the same.

Methane emissions from rice cultivation, methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure
management, and other smaller agricultural sources constitute the remaining non-CO2 emissions from
this sector. Although emissions from rice cultivation and manure management both are projected to grow
from 1990 to 2020, the expected growth is moderate compared to the larger sources. The emissions
from these and all other agricultural sources combined represent only 28 percent of total agricultural
emissions in both 1990 and 2020. Meanwhile, combined emissions from agricultural soils and enteric
fermentation are expected to contribute more than 72 percent of total agricultural emissions in 2020.

So, it's even worst to live solely from plants...in terms of emissions...

I think the solution is, as Aylyn said, low other totally-man-generated sources of greenhouse gases, and I also think that we can give a use to all that Methane, right now the methane recovery is not a common practice... I'm not really sure about here in the UK, but I can tell from Mexico that there are few farms that use it. But some are doing it ...so... maybe it's time to get more farms on the process. I mean even if you see it as "bussiness" (that's how everything needs to be these days ) there's a source of gas that is being wasted and it's a renewable resource.

[pangurban]

I mean even if you see it as "bussiness" (that's how everything needs to be these days

I am not sure that is such a bad thing because at the end of the day what we are talking about is peoples livelihoods both the Farmer and his employees, so to put things on a business level and show people there are alternatives is the way to go.

While we are on the subject of emissions what about the good old aeroplane which is in no doubt the biggest cause of them. There have been no real improvements since Whittle invented the jet engine, and yet we demand ever cheaper flights to fuel our desire for globe-trotting. This IMHO is more of a problem than the poor old cow.

[Aylyn]

I always think when I see reports like these where the money for them comes from? Who is backing the scientists who do these reports, are they as unbiased as they seem.

I am not sure that the scientists are biased - they have no need to be... The problem is that humans always like to go for the fast and easy solution, the quick fix. or years we have been told that recycling will solve all out problem, and now that we actually engage in it, it turns out it is not. What it boils down to is that we have to look at problems from every angle, and have to accept that a solution, if at all possible, is a lot harder to find than we might think.

After all, there is no external landfill site to take our garbage. We are in the position of a home-owner who has no garbage detail , and thus has to find an internal solution. Currently, we are sweeping all our garbage (metaphorically speaking) into the spare room where it is invisible, and continue business as usual. But the garbage takes over. So we need to find different solutions, and that means looking at all angles.

[pangurban]

I am not sure that the scientists are biased - they have no need to be...

I am not sure I agree Over the years there have been studies done on various subjects that have said that such and such is not as bad as has been suggested, These studies have turned out to have been financed by groups with a vested interest. Always follow the money is my advice. As to there being no need to again follow the money.

[cursuswalker]

The simple fact is that the biosphere produces CO2 and O2. Animals broadly produce the former and plants recycle it into the latter. CO2 production, even massive CO2 production, is fine so long as it is balanced by O2 production. The real problem is that it is not.

Incidentally, if there were NO greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere the entire planet would be frozen. This would be the result if we succeeded in removing them completely:

http://www.vfxtalk.com/forum/attachment ... entid=2613

[Aelfarh]

I mean even if you see it as "bussiness" (that's how everything needs to be these days

I am not sure that is such a bad thing because at the end of the day what we are talking about is peoples livelihoods both the Farmer and his employees, so to put things on a business level and show people there are alternatives is the way to go.

My point is that we are living in a system where the only thing that matters is profit, people will not do anything, even if its good for the planet, or even the longer term future of mankind if they don't see business on it. That I think is a bad thing.

While we are on the subject of emissions what about the good old aeroplane which is in no doubt the biggest cause of them. There have been no real improvements since Whittle invented the jet engine, and yet we demand ever cheaper flights to fuel our desire for globe-trotting. This IMHO is more of a problem than the poor old cow.

Yes, there's more problem there than the poor old cow, but no, it's not the biggest cause of them. Energy production has the first place, and in transportation airplane emissions are just about the 12 to 15% of emissions. Also, there have being improvements on gas turbines, a lot... believe me. Today's gas turbines are more efficient and produce less emissions. But a lot more will be achieve if people use public transport, bicycle or even walk instead of cars, we are so used to them, that even short distances are covered by car. I walk to work everyday, about 30 min walk...I also walk to go to the supermarket and people are surprised about that and ask me why don't I get a car, even a second hand one it's really impressive, they can't imagine a life without a car!

Incidentally, if there were NO greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere the entire planet would be frozen.

Well that's really obvious. Nobody here is talking of not having greenhouse gasses, we are talking about the excess that is causing damage

[cursuswalker]

Incidentally, if there were NO greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere the entire planet would be frozen.

Well that's really obvious. Nobody here is talking of not having greenhouse gasses, we are talking about the excess that is causing damage

I do think it bears repeating that this is about a balance, which does seem to get forgotten sometimes. As far as I can see this thread is possibly a manifestation of that.

[mwyalchen]

So, it's even worst to live solely from plants...in terms of emissions...

I'm not sure about that. It takes 3 to 5 times as much plant material to feed a human with meat products as it does to feed them with the plants direct. This is a crude approximation, I know; but a lot of meat these days is fed on feedstuffs which are suitable for a human to eat, or which replace other crops on land which could otherwise feed humans, so I'd suggest that it is broadly true overall. So more meat eating also means more vegetable agriculture needed to sustain us.

[Aelfarh]

So, it's even worst to live solely from plants...in terms of emissions...

I'm not sure about that. It takes 3 to 5 times as much plant material to feed a human with meat products as it does to feed them with the plants direct. This is a crude approximation, I know; but a lot of meat these days is fed on feedstuffs which are suitable for a human to eat, or which replace other crops on land which could otherwise feed humans, so I'd suggest that it is broadly true overall. So more meat eating also means more vegetable agriculture needed to sustain us.

Have you taken into account the increase on fields needed to get enough plants that substitute the nutrients given by meat, dairy and all other animal-related products? and the damage that agriculture do to the lands?