It’s refreshing to see thoughtful discussion around solutions to our environmental challenges, particularly when it comes to the impact of animal agriculture on climate change.
In line with your work, I thought you might find the documentary Dominion, narrated by Joaquin Phoenix, to be an interesting resource. The film offers a revealing look at the animal agriculture industry, covering not only environmental impacts but also animal welfare and ethical concerns. It goes in-depth into the practices of various sectors, including poultry and pork production, which you referenced as alternatives to beef and lamb.
While Dominion presents a challenging view, I believe it could serve as a thought-provoking complement to the insights you’re already sharing with your readers. By understanding the full range of impacts associated with all types of livestock, it might even help to further shape strategies and recommendations for sustainable diets.
Thank you for your work and your dedication to raising awareness on such a critical topic. I hope you’ll consider watching Dominion and, if you find it relevant, perhaps sharing it with your audience.
The general public's understanding of detailed emissions information is at the level of, "They're going to take away our hamburgers, our SUVs, and our cheap flights." This woeful ignorance persists because politicians and the mainstream press won't report, explain, or discuss the realities of overshoot and ecological collapse at all, let alone in clear and readily understood language.
Moreover, even though a majority of Americans are now in the "alarmed" and concerned" camps, and strongly support action on climate, I'm not sure that more than a small percentage of us understand the scale of loss and damage we're already stuck with, let alone the enormous personal and societal sacrifices required to pull back from the brink. In truth, "we" can't have cheap beef, cheap fossil fuels, cheap forest products and so on, and a global economy that operates within ecological limits. Because of our societal addiction to artificially "cheap" products, there's precious little political space for this reality to break through or for civil society to begin to deal with it seriously.
My grief around the gap between scientific understanding and action is grounded in personal experience as a member of the general public, in Oregon, occasionally advocating for better forest practices and management among other things. About 15 years ago I was at an event and able to ask the State Forester about managing state forests for carbon sequestration. I kind of got a blank stare in response, followed by a mostly non-answer claiming that state forests are "essentially" carbon neutral. Although there wasn't scientific proof at the time (probably), it has since become clear that the forest products industry in Oregon is our state's largest emitter. With this knowledge now in hand, we have decided not to count or regulate these emissions in our climate regulations (except for emissions from burning fossil fuels for transport, etc.). Much of the emissions and our lack of political will to address them is down to the political and economic power of private timberland owners, of course. The "good news" after all these years is that we're finally willing to consider preserving certain state forest lands for carbon sequestration, but this is probably because "we" can get paid for it now.
I wish people would realize it’s easier than you think to wean oneself from beef products. Avoiding Big Mac’s should be pretty easy these days! I regularly cook with plant based “ground beef” and my non - vegetarian partner can’t taste the difference. A popular fast food restaurant serves jackfruit burgers that are a delicious close approximation!
Once again, I state the obvious. Follow the money. Especially in the U.S. and South America, where the beef industry has a massive lobbying campaign going on every day to further profits for the beef industry. The only thing that will change that is western peoples dietary habits. Once the demand for beef, lamb and other methane producing food animals declines significantly, the pollution levels will decline with that. The U.S. is still living in that fantasy Hollywood made land where cowboys are still the mythical freedom riders and a symbol of free enterprise and rugged individuality. The beef industry will continue to capitalize on that marketing narrative as long as people continue to believe in it. It's time the western world went on a diet.
They probably made the same mistake with the climate emissions numbers for burning biomass. The lost carbon opportunity cost, and other land use emissions and impacts, can be greater than the direct emissions from burning biomass.
It's not really a mistake and more a political choice as the article mentions. What I'm wondering is how could we accurately represent the livestock impact without double counting ...
I’m assuming the livestock emissions are counted where the livestock are, so livestock-related land emissions would occur in the same country (often not the case for biomass burning). Livestock emissions are not counted where the meat is purchased and eaten, which is where demand (responsibility) for the meat occurs - another accounting problem! The lack of accountability for biomass and livestock uses is rooted in this aversion for “double-counting” - yet there is real responsibility at each step. I’m running into the same illogic when fighting for my pension fund to stop investing in fossil fuels. They claim no responsibility because the burning does not happen in our state, and “if we don’t invest in it, someone else will.” I say count the emissions at each step - all are responsible. Let scientists use the data to sort out the “double-counting” but the UN should hold EVERYONE responsible for causing the emissions at EVERY step.
Thanks for your analysis! I don't think that climate change can be adequately addressed until those in power are willing to be honest about the sources of pollution. Ignoring or hiding important information about sources of greenhouse gas emissions for political or economic reasons will only deepen the climate crisis.
Deforestation and biodiversity collapse should be measurements included in Agriculture and in Energy. In the US, millions of acres of what should be wild, functioning, carbon sequestering and biodiversity-supporting ecosystem is being destroyed by grazing, Big Solar and Big Wind.
The ONLY responsible way forward is onsite, LOCAL and distributed solar and storage, which also provides substantial shade benefits (reducing cooling loads, inequities and urban heat islands), steeply increases energy efficiency (see the CAISO "duck curve" for the millions of Big Solar kWh thrown away every year), local resilience (since transmission goes out whenever there is a weather or natural disaster, human error, cyberattack, or Big Energy preemptively shuts it down without compensation or alternatives), long-term well paid jobs (if states properly account for the value of onsite solar) and improves democracy and property values, while disempowering the Big Energy mercenaries who have caused and continue to cause catastrophic climate change.
I have a question: what is the difference between locally raised, pasture raised beef and feed lot beef from a carbon perspective? Thanks for any insight on this!
This is from Project Drawdown. It's more of a critique of regenerative grazing than a full blown compare and contrast of all options. However, it considers feedlot finishing versus grass/pasture finishing and, perhaps surprisingly, feedlot finishing likely causes fewer emissions. Feedlots are horrible for animal welfare and the environment in other respects, of course. https://drawdown.org/insights/regenerative-grazing-is-overhyped-as-a-climate-solution-we-should-do-it-anyway
All of these numbers are quite “soft”, not just animal ag. The graph shows cement at 3% — a single one of the top 4 global cement companies measures its impact at 6% of global emissions. The EPA numbers for fertilizer manufacture in the US have been shown to be off by a factor of 100X (so that one manufacturing process is roughly producing as much emissions as the EPA for all industrial processes in the US taken together). Where else are we off by a factor of 10X or more? I don’t know, but if I know these, there are probably others.
All of us together are like the blind people feeling the elephant. No single “truth” will be definitive, except the truth that we need massive change across the board from everyone.
Great article pointing out a political choice with big consequences! Thank you Heated, once again :-).
I'd love to hear what you think and/or have heard as a solution to represent the full impact of the livestock while not double counting (as your article mentions).
It’s refreshing to see thoughtful discussion around solutions to our environmental challenges, particularly when it comes to the impact of animal agriculture on climate change.
In line with your work, I thought you might find the documentary Dominion, narrated by Joaquin Phoenix, to be an interesting resource. The film offers a revealing look at the animal agriculture industry, covering not only environmental impacts but also animal welfare and ethical concerns. It goes in-depth into the practices of various sectors, including poultry and pork production, which you referenced as alternatives to beef and lamb.
Here’s a link:
https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
While Dominion presents a challenging view, I believe it could serve as a thought-provoking complement to the insights you’re already sharing with your readers. By understanding the full range of impacts associated with all types of livestock, it might even help to further shape strategies and recommendations for sustainable diets.
Thank you for your work and your dedication to raising awareness on such a critical topic. I hope you’ll consider watching Dominion and, if you find it relevant, perhaps sharing it with your audience.
Mark
The general public's understanding of detailed emissions information is at the level of, "They're going to take away our hamburgers, our SUVs, and our cheap flights." This woeful ignorance persists because politicians and the mainstream press won't report, explain, or discuss the realities of overshoot and ecological collapse at all, let alone in clear and readily understood language.
Moreover, even though a majority of Americans are now in the "alarmed" and concerned" camps, and strongly support action on climate, I'm not sure that more than a small percentage of us understand the scale of loss and damage we're already stuck with, let alone the enormous personal and societal sacrifices required to pull back from the brink. In truth, "we" can't have cheap beef, cheap fossil fuels, cheap forest products and so on, and a global economy that operates within ecological limits. Because of our societal addiction to artificially "cheap" products, there's precious little political space for this reality to break through or for civil society to begin to deal with it seriously.
My grief around the gap between scientific understanding and action is grounded in personal experience as a member of the general public, in Oregon, occasionally advocating for better forest practices and management among other things. About 15 years ago I was at an event and able to ask the State Forester about managing state forests for carbon sequestration. I kind of got a blank stare in response, followed by a mostly non-answer claiming that state forests are "essentially" carbon neutral. Although there wasn't scientific proof at the time (probably), it has since become clear that the forest products industry in Oregon is our state's largest emitter. With this knowledge now in hand, we have decided not to count or regulate these emissions in our climate regulations (except for emissions from burning fossil fuels for transport, etc.). Much of the emissions and our lack of political will to address them is down to the political and economic power of private timberland owners, of course. The "good news" after all these years is that we're finally willing to consider preserving certain state forest lands for carbon sequestration, but this is probably because "we" can get paid for it now.
Sigh.
I wish people would realize it’s easier than you think to wean oneself from beef products. Avoiding Big Mac’s should be pretty easy these days! I regularly cook with plant based “ground beef” and my non - vegetarian partner can’t taste the difference. A popular fast food restaurant serves jackfruit burgers that are a delicious close approximation!
Once again, I state the obvious. Follow the money. Especially in the U.S. and South America, where the beef industry has a massive lobbying campaign going on every day to further profits for the beef industry. The only thing that will change that is western peoples dietary habits. Once the demand for beef, lamb and other methane producing food animals declines significantly, the pollution levels will decline with that. The U.S. is still living in that fantasy Hollywood made land where cowboys are still the mythical freedom riders and a symbol of free enterprise and rugged individuality. The beef industry will continue to capitalize on that marketing narrative as long as people continue to believe in it. It's time the western world went on a diet.
They probably made the same mistake with the climate emissions numbers for burning biomass. The lost carbon opportunity cost, and other land use emissions and impacts, can be greater than the direct emissions from burning biomass.
It's not really a mistake and more a political choice as the article mentions. What I'm wondering is how could we accurately represent the livestock impact without double counting ...
I’m assuming the livestock emissions are counted where the livestock are, so livestock-related land emissions would occur in the same country (often not the case for biomass burning). Livestock emissions are not counted where the meat is purchased and eaten, which is where demand (responsibility) for the meat occurs - another accounting problem! The lack of accountability for biomass and livestock uses is rooted in this aversion for “double-counting” - yet there is real responsibility at each step. I’m running into the same illogic when fighting for my pension fund to stop investing in fossil fuels. They claim no responsibility because the burning does not happen in our state, and “if we don’t invest in it, someone else will.” I say count the emissions at each step - all are responsible. Let scientists use the data to sort out the “double-counting” but the UN should hold EVERYONE responsible for causing the emissions at EVERY step.
Thanks for your analysis! I don't think that climate change can be adequately addressed until those in power are willing to be honest about the sources of pollution. Ignoring or hiding important information about sources of greenhouse gas emissions for political or economic reasons will only deepen the climate crisis.
Deforestation and biodiversity collapse should be measurements included in Agriculture and in Energy. In the US, millions of acres of what should be wild, functioning, carbon sequestering and biodiversity-supporting ecosystem is being destroyed by grazing, Big Solar and Big Wind.
The ONLY responsible way forward is onsite, LOCAL and distributed solar and storage, which also provides substantial shade benefits (reducing cooling loads, inequities and urban heat islands), steeply increases energy efficiency (see the CAISO "duck curve" for the millions of Big Solar kWh thrown away every year), local resilience (since transmission goes out whenever there is a weather or natural disaster, human error, cyberattack, or Big Energy preemptively shuts it down without compensation or alternatives), long-term well paid jobs (if states properly account for the value of onsite solar) and improves democracy and property values, while disempowering the Big Energy mercenaries who have caused and continue to cause catastrophic climate change.
I have a question: what is the difference between locally raised, pasture raised beef and feed lot beef from a carbon perspective? Thanks for any insight on this!
This is from Project Drawdown. It's more of a critique of regenerative grazing than a full blown compare and contrast of all options. However, it considers feedlot finishing versus grass/pasture finishing and, perhaps surprisingly, feedlot finishing likely causes fewer emissions. Feedlots are horrible for animal welfare and the environment in other respects, of course. https://drawdown.org/insights/regenerative-grazing-is-overhyped-as-a-climate-solution-we-should-do-it-anyway
All of these numbers are quite “soft”, not just animal ag. The graph shows cement at 3% — a single one of the top 4 global cement companies measures its impact at 6% of global emissions. The EPA numbers for fertilizer manufacture in the US have been shown to be off by a factor of 100X (so that one manufacturing process is roughly producing as much emissions as the EPA for all industrial processes in the US taken together). Where else are we off by a factor of 10X or more? I don’t know, but if I know these, there are probably others.
All of us together are like the blind people feeling the elephant. No single “truth” will be definitive, except the truth that we need massive change across the board from everyone.
Great article pointing out a political choice with big consequences! Thank you Heated, once again :-).
I'd love to hear what you think and/or have heard as a solution to represent the full impact of the livestock while not double counting (as your article mentions).