Like me, you might be accustomed to seeing percentage figures on posters and elsewhere, indicating livestock’s share of greenhouse gas emissions.
Here’s an image showing a poster from the People’s Climate March in New York in September, 2014.
I’m not keen on quoting figures indicating livestock’s climate change impacts, unless I can try to explain them. Posters are not a great way to do that.
One problem is that, while environmental processes are dynamic, the figures are often portrayed as if they’re set in stone.
Another problem is that the figures depend on whichever factors have been taken into account, which can vary significantly from one report to another.
I commented on that issue in my February, 2013 article “Omissions of Emissions: A Critical Climate Change Issue“. [1] I stated that critical under-reporting of livestock’s impact occurs in many “official” figures because relevant factors are omitted entirely, classified under non-livestock headings, or considered but with conservative calculations.
An example of the latter is methane’s impact based on a 100-year, rather than 20-year, “global warming potential” (GWP). Methane is many times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and more so over a 20 year time horizon than 100 years. More on that below.
So while figures are often portrayed as being absolute, they should ideally be qualified so as to explain how they have been arrived at. That might not be very practical, but the issues are complex and cannot always be conveyed appropriately with just a few words or numbers.
Some prominent claims
Livestock reported to be responsible for 18 percent of emissions (which is more than transport)
In its 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) stated that livestock’s emissions represented 18 percent of the global total in the 2005 reference period. The figure was said to be higher than transport’s share. [2]
In September 2013, the FAO reduced its estimate of livestock’s share to 14.5 percent, yet that figure seems to have received relatively little attention. [3] As with “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, the reference period was 2005, but the assessment methodology had been amended. [4] The reasoning was that the FAO had used or relied on different methods for assessing the relative emissions of livestock and transport. In other words, they had not compared “apples with apples”. [5]
Despite the amended approach, both the 2006 and 2013 reports included emissions from fertiliser and feed production, land clearing, manure management, enteric fermentation (producing methane in the animal’s digestive system) and transportation of livestock animals and their feed. Both were based on the conservative 100-year GWP for methane.
Livestock reported to be responsible for at least 51 percent of emissions
The suggestion that livestock are responsible for at least 51 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions came from a 2009 World Watch magazine article by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang. [6] Goodland was the lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Anhang is a research officer and environmental specialist at the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation.
The article was effectively a critique of “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, with amended figures reflecting the authors’ concerns over the report. The authors took into account various factors, including: livestock respiration; 20-year GWP for livestock-related methane; and some allowance for foregone carbon sequestration on land previously cleared.
1. Livestock respiration
The authors argued that livestock respiration was overwhelming photosynthesis in absorbing carbon due to the massive human-driven increase in livestock numbers and removal of vegetation. Goodland subsequently stated, “In our assessment, reality no longer reflects the old model of the carbon cycle, in which photosynthesis balanced respiration”. [7]
Some have argued against the inclusion of respiration. Based on my calculations, by excluding that factor, the analysis would have indicated that livestock’s emissions represented 43 percent of the global total.
2. Methane
Goodland and Anhang applied a 20-year GWP to livestock-related methane emissions, which is particularly relevant to: (a) potential near-term climate change tipping points; and (b) identification of relatively rapid mitigation measures.
Methane breaks down in the atmosphere relatively quickly, with little remaining after 20 years. As a result, a 100-year GWP greatly understates its shorter-term impact.
Even methane’s near-term impacts can become long-term and irreversible to the extent that they contribute to us reaching tipping points and runaway climate change.
Comments from the IPCC, cited by respected climate change commentator, Joseph Romm, reflect the validity of using a 20-year GWP:
“There is no scientific argument for selecting 100 years compared with other choices (Fuglestvedt et al., 2003; Shine, 2009). The choice of time horizon is a value judgement since it depends on the relative weight assigned to effects at different times.” [8]
A possible cause for concern in this case is that the authors did not adopt the same approach for non-livestock methane emissions. Goodland has since stated, “Because we questioned many aspects of the FAO’s work, we were reluctant to use their figures for methane, but did so anyway for livestock methane because we couldn’t find a more reliable figure”. [9]
Goodland has argued that the impact of such an approach would have been more than offset by the fact that the number of livestock animals they based their assessments on (being the number used in “Livestock’s Long Shadow”) was far below the figure of 56 billion that the FAO’s statistical division had reported in 2007. He and Anhang became aware of the higher figure after their article was published.
The authors used the IPCC’s GWP estimate of 72 that applied at the time of the article. The IPCC has since increased the figure to 86 (incorporating carbon cycle feedbacks), while NASA estimates a figure of 105. [10]
With the rapid increase in extraction of unconventional fossil fuels since 2005, the growth in other anthropogenic sources of methane may have caused livestock’s share of emissions to reduce from what it would otherwise have been.
3. Foregone sequestration
The FAO allowed for emissions from land clearing in the year such changes occurred, with loss of carbon from vegetation and soil. However, it did not allow for the resultant ongoing loss of carbon sequestration.
Goodland and Anhang sought to allow for that factor to some extent. They suggested the possibility of allowing land that has been cleared for livestock grazing or feed crop production to regenerate as forest, thereby mitigating “as much as half (or even more) of anthropogenic GHGs” [greenhouse gases]. They argued that the land could, alternatively, be used to grow crops for direct human consumption or crops that could be converted to biofuels, thereby reducing our reliance on coal. They used the biofuel scenario in their calculations, incorporating the greenhouse gas emissions from the coal that is continuing to be used in lieu of the biofuels.
Goodland’s response to feedback to the 2009 World Watch article can be seen in his March/April, 2010 article, “‘Livestock and Climate Change’: Critical Comments and Responses“ (referred to above).
Australian Emissions
Estimates of animal agriculture’s share of Australian emissions range from the official figure of around 10 percent to 49 percent.
The Australian government’s 2012 National Inventory Report used a figure of 10.9 percent, representing the aggregate of: (a) enteric fermentation in the digestive systems of ruminant animals; and (b) manure management. The figure was based on a 100-year GWP for methane. [11]
The 49 percent figure is from the land use plan released in October 2014 by Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (The University of Melbourne). The figure allows for factors such as: a 20-year GWP; livestock related land clearing and subsequent soil carbon loss; and livestock related non-carbon dioxide warming agents such as carbon monoxide and tropospheric ozone. [12]
The overall figure for animal agriculture may actually be higher than 49 percent using BZE’s calculations, as they have reported it solely in relation to rangeland grazing. However, their figure for all agriculture is only marginally higher, at 54 percent.
Cowspiracy: some modification may be beneficial
The documentary film “Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret“ focuses on the environmental impacts of animal agriculture. Those behind it seem to have significantly raised community awareness of this critical issue. [13]
I am yet to see the film, but have reviewed the climate change material from its website.
At the time of writing, the site’s “facts” page shows the FAO’s 2006 figure of 18 percent for animal agriculture. A footnote has been added, confirming the FAO’s 2013 estimate of 14.5 percent, as referred to above.
The page then states (with my underline), “livestock and their byproducts actually account for . . . at least 51 percent of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions”.
The word “actually” implies an absolute, definitive figure, with none of the qualifying comments of the type I have referred to above. I am uncomfortable with the thought of relying on the figure in that way.
The site also indicates that “methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2” and “methane has a global warming power 86 times that of CO2”.
Both statements appear to be referring to methane’s GWP (global warming potential).
The presentation referred to for the figure of 86 is attributed to Erika Podest of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. [14] However, it does not seem to refer to that figure, which is the IPCC’s current 20-year GWP after allowing for carbon cycle feedbacks. (Without those feedbacks, the IPCC’s current estimate is 84.)
Instead, the presentation refers to a GWP of 25 (slide 8), which is the 100-year figure from the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. In its Fifth Assessment Report from 2013, the IPCC used a figure of 34.
The referenced article for the figures of 25-100 actually indicates an upper figure of 105. Perhaps ironically, it comes from NASA researchers. [10]
Please also see the postscript of 16th November, 2014 below.
The main message
Regardless of which approach is adopted, the key message must be that we will not overcome climate change without urgent action on both fossil fuels and animal agriculture.
The precise percentage share of the many contributors to greenhouse gas emissions matters little in that context.
An alternative poster
Here’s my contribution to the world of posters, which I like to believe accurately represents our current position.
Additional Comments
A large proportion of the organisations that partnered with the FAO in reviewing its methodology were major participants in the livestock sector. They included the European Feed Manufacturers’ Federation, the International Dairy Federation, the International Meat Secretariat, the International Egg Commission, and the International Poultry Council. [15]
The FAO is now indicating that meat consumption will increase by more than 70 percent by 2050, and has suggested various approaches for reducing relevant emissions. However, any improvement in the emissions intensity of production would be marginal relative to the reductions that could be achieved by a general move toward plant-based products.
The partnership also included the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which has been accused of working with major business organisations that allegedly use the WWF brand to help improve their green credentials, while acting against the interests of the environment. [16]
As I have reported elsewhere, the partnership was chaired by Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California, Davis, who has disclosed research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. [17]
Author: Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)
Related articles: “Omissions of Emissions: a Critical Climate Change Issue” and “Cowspiracy and the Australian red meat industry”
Postscript 16th November, 2014: I will comment elsewhere on other aspects of Cowspiracy’s “facts” page. However, one I will mention here is the suggestion that cows emit methane through “farting”. The cited article from the International Business Times appears to be incorrect in that regard, as the emissions primarily occur through belching, with a relatively small amount released from “manure management” (being a category specified in the National Greenhouse Accounts). It may seem a trivial issue, but I am concerned that it can appear within a page that people refer to as an authoritative resource. It also reinforces a major misconception about livestock’s emissions that causes many people to laugh them off.
Postscript 7th November 2021: The final image has been updated with one I used on my other website, Planetary Vegan.
Images:
Image from the People’s Climate March from video on the Facebook page of “Cowspiracy: The sustainability secret”, https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=288706614654201
Final poster image © Gkuna | Dreamstime.com – Grazing Cows Photo
References:
[1] Mahony, P., “Omissions of Emissions: A Critical Climate Change Issue“, Terrastendo, 9th February, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/02/09/omissions-of-emissions-a-critical-climate-change-issue/
[2] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow – Environmental Issues and Concerns”, p. xxi, Rome, http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM (Related FAO articles at http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm; and http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/)
[3] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 26th September, 2013, “Major cuts of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock within reach”, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197608/icode/
[4] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Methodology: Tackling climate change through livestock”, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197644/icode/
[5] Brainard, C., “Meat vs Miles”, The Observatory, 29th March, 2010, http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/meat_vs_miles.php?page=all
[6] Goodland, R & Anhang, J, “Livestock and Climate Change – What if the key actors in climate change are cows, pigs, and chickens?”, World Watch, Nov/Dec, 2009, pp 10-19, http://www.worldwatch.org/files /pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
[7] Goodland, R., “Lifting lifestock’s long shadow”, Nature Climate Change 3, 2 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1755, Published online 21 December 2012, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1755.html and http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nclimate1755
[8] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fifth Assessment Report, 2014, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/, cited in Romm, J., “More Bad News For Fracking: IPCC Warns Methane Traps More Heat”, The Energy Collective, 7th October, 2013, http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/284336/more-bad-news-fracking-ipcc-warns-methane-traps-much-more-heat-we-thought
[9] Goodland, R., “‘Livestock and Climate Change’: Critical Comments and Responses”, World Watch, Mar/Apr, 2010, http://www.chompingclimatechange.org/uploads/8/0/6/9/8069267/livestock_and_climate_change_critical_comments_and_responses.pdf
[10] Schindell, D.T.; Faluvegi, G.; Koch, D.M.; Schmidt, G.A.; Unger, N.; Bauer, S.E. “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”, Science, 30 October 2009; Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718; DOI: 10.1126/science.1174760, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only
[11] Australian National Greenhouse Accounts National Inventory Report 2012, Volume 1, pp. 39 and 257, http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-measurement/publications/national-inventory-report-2012
[12] Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, The University of Melbourne, “Zero Carbon Australia, Land Use: Agriculture and Forestry Discussion Paper”, p. 68 & 97, October, 2014, http://bze.org.au/landuse
[13] “Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret”, http://www.cowspiracy.com/
[14] Podest, E., “Methane: its role as a greenhouse gas”, Greenhouse Gases Professional Development Workshop, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasedena, California, 21st April, 2012, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/education/pdfs/podest_ghg.pdf, cited in “Cowspiracy: The Facts”, http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
[15] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “New effort to harmonize measurement of livestock’s environmental impacts”, 4th July, 2012, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/150555/icode/
[16] Huismann, W., “Panda Leaks: the dark side of the WWF“, cited in Vidal, J., “WWF International accused of ‘selling its soul’ to corporations”, The Guardian, 4th October, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/04/wwf-international-selling-its-soul-corporations
[17] Goodland, R., “FAO’s New Parternship with the Livestock Industry“, Chomping Climate Change, 20th July, 2012, http://www.chompingclimatechange.org/blog/faos-new-parternship-with-the-livestock-industry
terrastendo 
Paul writes: “In its 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) stated that livestock’s emissions represented 18 percent of the global total in the 2005 reference period. The figure was said to be higher than transport’s share. [2]”
LLS is somewhat opaque on this point, but “Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock” clearly indicates that you are incorrect about the reference period year used in LLS, noting: “The 2006 assessment compared its estimate (based on a 2001 to 2004 reference period) with total CH4, N20, and CO2 athropogenic emissions estimated provided by the World Resource Institute (WRI) for the year 2000.” (pg. 15)” This can also be verified from various WRI estimates, if one understands that between LLS and TCCTL, the LUCF estimates were revised downward.
“Goodland has argued that the impact of such an approach would have been more than offset by the fact that the number of livestock animals they based their assessments on (being the number used in “Livestock’s Long Shadow”) was far below the figure of 56 billion that the FAO’s statistical division had reported in 2007. He and Anhang became aware of the higher figure after their article was published.”
It’s trivial to confirm that the 56 billion number is for the number of animals slaughtered in a year, while “Livestock’s Long Shadow” uses live animal estimates (i.e. the number of animals alive at the time enumeration). So no, there would not be a sufficient offset…
http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=573#ancor
The fossil fuel industry in Australia is currently going on an all out expansion. The environmental and water protection controls on the mining of new coal and the expansion of the Coal Seam Gas fracking industry have been demolished. Just one new mine, Whitehaven’s Maules Creek Coal Mine (http://frontlineaction.org/news/) near Boggabri will have the carbon emissions equivalent to the whole of New Zealand, each year, for the next thirty years. The Carmichael mine in Qld will be about 3 times the size. Fracking is spewing out unmonitored methane from wells, rivers, soil and transport.
As this is happening our farms are already in an extended Anthropogenic Climate Change induced drought. Cattle and sheep are being slaughtered at unprecedented rates. The other factor in climate change is, of course, human population. We too are on the cusp of drastically diminishing in numbers due to climate related war, displacement, extreme weather events and famine. I have this nasty feeling that the era of our problems of too much obesity, meat production and factory farming could be over sooner than we expect. How long will it take a starving population faced with major crop failures to eat most available livestock?
You also have not factored in that the existence of food animals within a traditional farming or hunter gatherer system is established in the natural cycle – sorry, I’m not a scientist so I don’t know the correct terms, but I know that the balance of plant/animal mutually sustains as a way of getting soil nutrients and food recycling. That is not something we want to deny to subsistence farmers or indigenous communities. As far as I’m concerned, the whole global economy and its agricultural practices based on fossil fuel energy and monoculture using artificial fertiliser are totally unsustainable, but there are also the social factors of animal husbandry to consider. Factory farming creates cruelty through unnatural environmental and financial pressures.
In a natural system, we work with our animals, we rely on them and love them – even if we eat them we give their species a way of surviving and reproducing. I’m sorry, I know and love a lot of vegans, but I would appreciate it if you stopped confusing the issues of animal welfare with climate change. Fossil fuel is what has upset the health of the biosphere with its unbalanced input and that is the thing we have to shut down; as a concerted effort, together or seperately, but preferably using Non Violent Direct Action. Fight for the disbanding of factory farms and fight for animal rights, but don’t let it divert your energy from the biggest battle we will ever fight; for ourselves and every other large life-form on this planet. Please stop saying that meat consumption is the main cause of climate change, because it is quite obvious that it is not. It saddens me how it clouds the main issue and divides the activist community.
Where have I said that meat consumption is the main cause of climate change? My position, stated many times, is that we will not overcome climate change without dealing with fossil fuels and animal agriculture. Indeed, that’s the key message of this post, along with the fact that we shouldn’t get caught up in percentages.
I don’t focus on factory farming specifically, yet you’ve implied that that issue and animal rights have diverted my “energy from the biggest battle we will ever fight”. Have you seen my page containing posts on climate change in general, as opposed to climate change and animal agriculture? https://terrastendo.net/the-issues/climate-change-in-general/
The FAO isn’t measuring total emissions…they’re providing an attribution of the share of total emissions in a given year (2000), as measured according to the same GHG inventory methods adopted in the Kyoto framework, that can be attributed to livestock. Other organizations (the IPCC and the WRI) have done similar attributions, albeit for agriculture, where the industry is defined as what happens up to the farm-gate. Adding to a few points you’ve made:
“Goodland has argued that the impact of such an approach would have been more than offset by the fact that the number of livestock animals they based their assessments on (being the number used in “Livestock’s Long Shadow”) was far below the figure of 56 billion that the FAO’s statistical division had reported in 2007. He and Anhang became aware of the higher figure after their article was published.”
Herrero et al. (2011) have indicated that this represents confusion on Goodland’s part. In particular, they note:
“The use of lower figures of animal numbers in the estimation of greenhouse gases and
failure to use a correction fact or are cited as one of the shortfalls of the FAO report (FAO 2006). Specific reference is made to the citation of the production on of 33 million poultry worldwide. This however stems from a misinterpretation on the part of Goodland and Anhang (2009) who confound “poultry biomass” for production of poultry meat.”
This can confirmed from Table 3.6 of the FAO study, which includes the respiration estimates that Goodland and Anhang “missed.”
“A possible cause for concern in this case is that the authors did not adopt the same approach for non-livestock methane emissions. Goodland has since stated, “Because we questioned many aspects of the FAO’s work, we were reluctant to use their figures for methane, but did so anyway for livestock methane because we couldn’t find a more reliable figure”. [9] ”
Except that Goodland and Anhang are using estimates of total emission from the WR, not the FAO, and these include estimates of methane from all anthropogenic sources. They also parrot back the 37 percent figure provided by the FAO in their original study, without indicating any misgiving (or providing an later details on what those misgivings might be).
The purpose of this post was to explain where certain figures have come from. I don’t intend entering into a long debate on the merits of the G&A article.
I posted here initially in response to your previous posting where you noted “In that article, McKibben stated that the “51%” study (presumably the Goodland and Anhang study but he provided no details) was “quickly discredited”. He did not support that claim with evidence.”
My interest hasn’t been in debating the “merits” of Goodland and Anhang, but rather in figuring out if/why it was discredited. The comment about the methane adjustment was probably gratuitous, since I already noted this on the earlier comment sections. However, I thought it was at least possible that you might be *interested* in the biomass verse production distinction.
As should be obvious, I don’t think there is any merit to G&A. But if you have information that suggests my assessments of the various parts of their analysis are incorrect, I’m certainly interested in learning more.
Fair enough. Thanks for the information.
Great article Paul. On the important matter of farting and belching, perhaps it would be better to say “cows emit methane through breathing”. From page 48 of the BZE Land Use report: “Methane is mostly absorbed into the blood before release through the lungs, with smaller amounts eliminated by belching or deposited in manure.”
Thanks Greg. Definitely something to look into further. I have referred to methane released from “manure management” previously, including in my “omissions of emissions” article, and have modified the postscript slightly in that regard.
My view is that neither the FAO figure nor the Goodland and Anhang figure are particularly useful, since neither provides a proper assessment of mitigation potentials. Have you seen the IPCC’s AR5 report on the mitigation potential of dietary change? They draw on studies that explicitly consider various scenarios, including Stehfest et al. (2009) and Smith et al. (2013).
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
Thanks. I’ve cited Stehfest et al (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency) many times but will look into Smith et al. and the specific reference in the AR5 mitigation report.
Great work Paul unpacking those arguments and ultimately, producing a virtual protest sign. I think that final message is the clearest and simplest message we can take out to the world. Solving this problem is not easy. Having the movement understand the fundamental solution is critical.
Thanks Bruce. Yes, urgent action across all possible fronts is essential.