Cows vs. Cars – The Real Climate Change Culprit

Meet the world’s largest threat to the climate and ecosystems:
  

The climate destroyer. (Source)

Look at that face!

When we think of the drivers of climate change, fossil fuels are what we think of. This is by no means wrong; coal, oil and natural gas are indeed major sources of human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). However, it is believed that livestock - cows in particular - are immensely underestimated as a source of GHGs and actually produce half of all human-caused GHGs, as shown in the table below. If correct, it suggests that finding alternatives to livestock products would be a rapidly effective course of action in slowing down anthropogenic climate change – a more immediate solution than the gradual change of replacing fossil fuels with renewables, say.

Table showing the breakdown of livestock-related GHG emissions that have been uncounted or misallocated by the FAO and the total when these are taken into account. (Source)


In the past, eating beef has been associated with western cultures, but, with economic and personal growth to the east, we see beef consumption becoming increasingly popular and affordable in new consumer societies. As a result, the global meat consumption grew from 47 million tonnes in 1950 to 260 million tonnes in 2005, which more than doubled the rate of consumption per person from 17 to 40 kg each year. This increasing demand for beef meat means that there is a greater demand for grazing areas to rear the cattle, fulfilled by expanding pasture area. This has a direct effect on the land use and land cover changes – it interferes with the complex interactions of the ecosystems and can have a significant negative impact on the ecosystem services. For example, the clearance of trees to make room for pastures leads to degradation of soil quality as the soil becomes exposed and therefore more susceptible to erosion. The impacts of land change, as well as the release of the methane produced from the ruminant’s digestive system, both have an influence on biogeochemical changes in the atmosphere.

"Who, me?" (Source)

Scary stuff, all these cows. Time to ditch the meat?

A report published in Climatic Science found that meat-eater’s dietary GHG emissions were twice as high as vegans’. This takes into account production, storage and transportation of the meat.

The solution: we need to convince everyone to become vegans to save the planet.
  

Great! This would be beneficial in other ways besides reducing our carbon footprint. A vegetarian diet could feed more people than a meat-based diet.  In 1990, the World Hunger Program at Brown University calculated that world harvests, if equitably distributed without feeding livestock, could provide a vegetarian diet to 6 billion people, whereas a meat-rich diet could support only 2.6 billion. These sort of numbers cannot be ignored with a growing population expected to hit 9.6 billion in 2050. Food shortages are imminent – the future needs us to drop our unsustainable meat-eating.

If we’re honest, this is not going to happen. Think about the world's favourite global food-chain: McDonald’s. Their most beloved product, the Big Mac, is a beef burger. We’re going to have a very tough time convincing customers (not to mention the company themselves) that they must give up meat. It monopolises such a significant proportion of our food industry and our culture, that it would be next to impossible for our society to accept losing it. Roast beef and Yorkshire puddings, anyone? Yes, please.

In all seriousness though, we do need to see a change in meat consumption, because it cannot carry on like this – it's simply not sustainable. However, whilst it is next to impossible for our society at present to sacrifice it entirely, a reduction in beef consumption would be a significant help.

A good way to make people think twice about their meat consumption recently has been rating processed red meats alongside smoking for cancer causes. This scare has definitely been effective in reducing meat consumption - some supermarkets have even claimed processed meat sales reducing by as much as 25%. It seems to me that there needs to be much greater public awareness on the other damages that meat can cause after seeing the impact that this report has had on consumers. High carbon emissions, ecosystem degradation and the potential of future food shortages – surely such reasons would also make people think twice about the meat consumption? Or maybe not, since this is not news: people are aware, at least on a basic level, of the effect that consuming meat can have on the environment. So perhaps people are only bothered when it comes to their personal health, rather than the health of the whole world.