Archives for posts with tag: climate change

My beef with Gore, Obama and the US EPA over climate change

November 24, 2015 //

With the Paris climate summit now only days away, it appears that the massive impact of animal agriculture will be largely ignored.

In Australia, the organisers of planned “people’s climate marches” have declared:

“We will march to show that we want an end to fossil fuels and a planned transition to 100% renewable energy.”

None of their promotional material seems to mention animal agriculture.

Is any of that surprising? Tragically not, when official figures consistently understate livestock’s impact through various means, including the fact that the vast extent of relevant land clearing is recorded under a non-livestock heading. The result is that we ignore one of the great contributors to climate change and fail to implement potentially extremely effective mitigation measures.

The failure of environmental agencies to highlight the livestock sector’s impacts reached a new low in September, 2014, when the United States Environmental Protection Agency released a video with the title “Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction“.

Not only did the EPA’s video ignore the climate change impacts of livestock production, it flipped the issue on its head, by saying that climate change “affects our ability to raise cattle“.

The speaker, in earnest fashion, went on to say that such an impact, along with a number of other consequences of climate change, “would pose a significant challenge to our nation“.

Here’s the full passage, along with additional comments:

“Climate change makes it more difficult to ensure adequate water supplies, drinking water, growing crops, and hydro power. It destroys our rivers and beaches, and changes the landscape of our country . . . It affects our ability to raise cattle, and catch fish, and increases the risk we face of infectious disease and heat-related deaths.”

“There’s no time to ‘wait’. The consequences of delaying action will only become more severe and more difficult to overcome.”

Here’s the video (duration 3:25, with the comment on cattle at 0:59):

He tells us that it all comes down to individual actions (while failing to mention dietary habits):

“In the same way that all our individual actions caused the climate to change so rapidly, we can all be part of the solution. Working together, we can make a difference as we continue to reduce greenhouse gases and anticipate, prepare and adapt to a change in climate.”

Although individual action is critical, it needs to be supported and encouraged by government policies.

The EPA’s statement reminded me of social commentator, Clive Hamilton, bemoaning attempts by governments and others to direct all blame and responsibility toward individuals. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, Hamilton has quoted professor of social sciences at Yale-NUC College Singapore, Michael Maniates:

“A privatization and individualization of responsibility for environmental problems shifts blame from state elites and powerful producer groups to more amorphous culprits like ‘human nature’ or ‘all of us’”

Someone else who has fallen short in campaigning on the livestock issue is former US vice president and creator of “An inconvenient truth“, Al Gore, who seems to have said little since first addressing the matter, in subdued fashion, in 2009.

In an interview at the time, he said that he had “cut back sharply” on the amount of meat he was eating due to its impacts on climate change and water usage. In his book of the same year for young readers, “Our Choice: A plan to solve the climate crisis“, he said:

“There is a serious issue about the connection between the growing meat intensity of diets around the world and damage to the environment . . .”

Some family background may help to explain Gore’s relative lack of interest since then.

His father, Al Gore, Sr was also a politician, having been elected to Congress in 1938 and then the Senate in 1952. He was also a cattle farmer. Al Gore, Jr has said his father:

“. . . always raised cattle, he always farmed, he always found relaxation, even in Washington, by going to the farm and working with cattle.”

Gore became vegan in 2013, but not for environmental reasons. He subsequently said:

“Over a year ago I changed my diet to a vegan diet, really just to experiment to see what it was like. And I felt better, so I continued with it. Now, for many people, that choice is connected to environmental ethics and health issues and all that stuff, but I just wanted to try it to see what it was like.”

Even Barrack Obama, while still a senator in 2008, acknowledged some of the adverse environmental, social justice and human health impacts of animal agriculture when questioned by Nikki Benoit of Vegan Outreach. However, Obama is a politician, and seemingly sought to hedge his bets and connect with the broader electorate by declaring that he likes a steak “once in a while”.

If climate change is as serious a threat as Obama has indicated (indeed it is), shouldn’t he address animal agriculture’s role, rather than focusing almost exclusively on fossil fuels? (Even those actions were delayed until far too late in his presidency, and did not go far enough.)

Here’s the video:

xxx

If individuals and agencies of authority, along with prominent environmental groups, continue to ignore or effectively deny the impact of animal agriculture, then they must be challenged. The EPA needs to realise that “the cost of inaction” on animal agriculture will be catastrophic, and that we will not overcome the climate crisis by focusing solely on fossil fuels.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Facebook, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)

References

US Environmental Protection Agency, “Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction”, 19th September, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o8qlJ8jcx0

Hamilton, C, “Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change”, (2007) Black Inc Agenda, p. 110

Zelnick, R., “Gore: A political life” (1999), cited in The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/z/zelnick-gore.html

Henneberger, M., “A boy’s life in and out of the family script”, 22nd May, 2000, The New York Times, https://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/052200wh-dem-gore.html

d’Estries, M., “Al Gore finally drops meat, goes vegan”, 27th November, 2013, http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/blogs/al-gore-finally-drops-meat-goes-vegan

Gore, A., “Our Choice: A plan to solve the climate crisis”, 2009, Puffin Books and Viking Children’s Books, divisions of Penguin Young Readers Group, http://ourchoicethebook.com/, cited in d’Estries, M., ibid.

Interview with Eric Topol, MD, Medscape, 7th March, 2014, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/820985#5, cited in d’Estries, M., “Al Gore says he’ll likely stay vegan ‘for life'”, 13th March, 2014, http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/blogs/al-gore-says-hell-likely-stay-vegan-for-life

Barack Obama responds to vegan question (Subtitled), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt56ER4TSqc and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILsCN8KWXJY

Image

Cattle © Casadphoto | Dreamstime.com

Tags animal agriculture, climate, climate change, environment, livestock, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

A livestock recap on the road to Paris

November 21, 2015 //

On the final weekend of November, 2015, marches will occur around the world, with participants demanding urgent and effective action on climate change. The organisers of the Australian marches, like so-called world leaders who will meet at the Paris climate summit, are focusing almost exclusively on the impact of fossil fuels. In doing so, they are overlooking or ignoring another critical contributor to climate change, animal agriculture.

This post is a recap of some of the key issues, along with some new information.

What is the problem?

Producing animal-based foods affects the environment in dramatic ways. Here are some examples of prominent organisations and individuals sounding the alarm over many years:

“[Animal food products] place undue demand on land, water, and other resources required for intensive food production, which makes the typical Western diet not only undesirable from the standpoint of health but also environmentally unsustainable.” The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (2002)

“[Livestock production] is one of the major causes of the world’s most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.” The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2006)

“Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth, increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”
United Nations Environment Programme (2010)

“Please eat less meat; meat is a very carbon intensive commodity.” Former head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri (2010)

Livestock’s climate change impacts arise from many inter-related factors, such as its inherent inefficiency as a food source; the massive scale of the industry; land clearing far beyond what would otherwise be required to satisfy our nutritional requirements; greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide; and other warming agents such as black carbon.

Livestock’s impacts are understated

The adverse climate change impact of livestock production is understated in most official figures, because relevant data is either omitted, classified under non-livestock headings, or included on the basis of conservative calculations.

Allowing for the relevant factors, the 2014 Land Use, Agriculture and Forestry discussion paper prepared by Australian climate change advocacy group, Beyond Zero Emissions in conjunction with Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (University of Melbourne), indicated that animal agriculture was responsible for around 50 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The findings were reinforced in a subsequent peer-reviewed journal article, which had two co-authors in common with the BZE paper.

Some key contributors

Methane (CH4) is produced in the digestive system of ruminant animals, such as cows and sheep. In Australia, measured over a 20-year time horizon, methane from livestock produces more warming than all our coal-fired power stations combined. That’s in a country with amongst the highest per capita emissions in the world due to our heavy reliance on coal.

The 20-year time horizon (including its associated “global warming potential”) is critical in terms of potential climate change tipping points, with potentially catastrophic and irreversible consequences. [See footnote.]

Although methane is a critical problem (including methane from livestock-related savanna burning), so are livestock-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, resulting from the clearing of forest and other vegetation. The carbon locked in cleared vegetation is released as CO2. We are hit twice, as once the vegetation is gone, we no longer have the benefit of its ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.

In Australia, nearly a third of our non-arid and semi-arid land has been cleared for livestock production. A large portion of the remainder has been severely degraded by livestock grazing, with significant loss of soil carbon.

According to the World Resources Institute, overgrazing is the largest single cause of land degradation, world-wide. Much of the degradation occurs in the semi-arid areas. Cattle are heavy animals with hard hooves, big appetites, and a digestive system that produces large quantities of manure. Turned loose on fragile, semi-arid environments, they can soon devastate a landscape that has not evolved to cope with them.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is also emitted in great quantities from animal manure and fertiliser used on animal feedcrops, along with livestock-related savanna burning. It is nearly 300 times as potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Two warming agents generally omitted from official figures, and prominent in animal agriculture, are tropospheric ozone and black carbon. They remain in the atmosphere for a short period, but have a significant impact.

The impact of chicken, pig and dairy consumption

Chickens and pigs are not ruminant animals belching significant amounts of methane (although methane and nitrous oxide are emitted from their excrement). However, we are sitting on a climate change precipice while continuing to destroy the Amazon rainforest and occupy previously cleared land in order to grow soy beans (and graze cattle).

A significant proportion of those soy beans are fed to billions of chickens and pigs in a grossly inefficient process. Cows in the dairy industry are also major recipients.

Seafood’s impacts

Like chickens and pigs, fish and other sea creatures do not belch methane, and they do not require us to destroy massive areas of rainforest for grazing (although they are fed soy meal in fish farms).

The oceans cover 71 percent of our planet’s surface. They are home to complex ecosystems that are being disturbed by industrial and non-industrial (including recreational) fishing in ways that may profoundly affect our climate system.

A recent paper in Nature Climate Change has helped to highlight some of impact. The problem arises largely from the fact that fishing disturbs food webs, changing the way ecosystems function, and altering the ecological balance of the oceans in dangerous ways. The paper focused on the phenomenon of “trophic downgrading”, the disproportionate loss of species high in the food chain, and its impact on vegetated coastal habitats consisting of seagrass meadows, mangroves and salt marshes.

The loss of predators such as large carnivorous fish, sharks, crabs, lobsters, seals and sea lions, and the corresponding population increase of herbivores and bioturbators (creatures who disturb ocean sediment, including certain crabs) causes loss of carbon from the vegetation and sediment.

Those habitats are estimated to store up to 25 billion tonnes of carbon, making them the most carbon-rich ecosystems in the world. They sequester carbon 40 times faster than tropical rainforests and contribute 50 per cent of the total carbon buried in ocean sediment.

Estimates of the areas affected are unavailable, but if only 1 per cent of vegetated coastal habitats were affected to a depth of 1 metre in a year, around 460 million tonnes of CO2 could be released. That is around the level of emissions from all motor vehicles in Britain, France and Spain combined, or a little under Australia’s current annual emissions.

Loss of ongoing carbon sequestration is the other problem. If sequestration capability was reduced by 20 per cent in only 10 per cent of vegetated coastal habitats, it would equate to a loss of forested area the size of Belgium.

These impacts only relate to vegetated coastal habitats, and do not allow for loss of predators on kelp forests, coral reefs or open oceans, or the direct impact on habitat of destructive fishing techniques such as trawling.

Will we grasp a golden opportunity?

A 2009 study by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency estimated that a global transition to a completely animal free diet would reduce climate change mitigation costs by around 80 per cent. A meat-free diet would reduce them by 70 per cent.

Will we grasp the opportunity that those figures represent, or continue to effectively ignore the issue?

The failure of prominent environmental groups

Prominent organisations, such as Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC), Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), the Greens political party in Australia, and 350.org, have failed to campaign meaningfully, if at all, on the livestock issue.

ACF advocates consumption of “grass fed as opposed to grain fed meat”, seemingly unaware that the emissions intensity of grass-fed is far higher than that of the grain-fed alternative (with both being on a different paradigm to plant-based foods). Bill McKibben of 350.org has made similar claims, with neither citing evidence for their position to my knowledge. Despite what they may wish to believe, the natural way is not always best in every respect.

AYCC describes itself as “a real force to be reckoned with”, but has failed miserably on this topic.

Hopefully, those groups and others will add the livestock issue to their campaigning efforts, helping to inform their supporters and significantly enhancing their effectiveness.

Social Justice

Environmental groups in Australia are using the catch-cry “Climate justice, climate peace” in the weeks before the Paris climate summit. It may have merit, but to the extent campaigners consume animal-based foods, they ignore the injustice of livestock production.

For example, researchers from the University of Minnesota have estimated that we would have the capacity to feed another 4 billion people with a general transition to a plant-based diet. That would enable us to resolve the current crisis that exists in the form of nearly 800 million people who are chronically under-nourished.

Of course, with livestock’s massive climate change impacts, ignoring the issue flies directly in the face of the message of climate justice and peace intended to be conveyed by the campaigners.

Personal choice?

Many people argue that food consumption is a matter of personal choice, and that their choices should not be challenged by others. However, we can no longer regard food choices as strictly personal when their impacts have far-reaching, adverse consequences.

Governments could assist with information campaigns, and by creating pricing mechanisms that ensure the environmental cost of consumption is allowed for in the price paid by the end-user, thereby reducing demand for high emissions intensity products, along with the resultant supply.

Conclusion

The road to Paris may have been difficult so far, but the way forward, with potential tipping points and runaway climate change, could be very ugly indeed. It is time to wake up, face the ultimate inconvenient truth, and take all necessary steps in an effort to avoid catastrophe.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Facebook, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)

Footnote

For more on the “global warming potential” of different greenhouse gases, see GWP explained.

Even in the absence of clear tipping points, climate feedback mechanisms create accelerating, non-linear changes, which are potentially irreversible.

References

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization, “Human Vitamin and Mineral Requirements: Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation Bangkok, Thailand”, 2001, pp. 14, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y2809e/y2809e00.pdf and http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y2809E/y2809e08.htm

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Livestock impacts on the environment”, Spotlight 2006, November 2006

UNEP (2010) Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials, A Report of the Working Group on the Environmental Impacts of Products and Materials to the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management. Hertwich, E., van der Voet, E., Suh, S., Tukker, A., Huijbregts M., Kazmierczyk, P., Lenzen, M., McNeely, J., Moriguchi, Y.

Agence France-Presse, “Lifestyle changes can curb climate change: IPCC chief”, 15 January, 2010, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIVBkZpOUA9Hz3Xc2u-61mDlrw0Q

Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute of The University of Melbourne, “Zero Carbon Australia – Land Use: Agriculture and Forestry – Discussion Paper”, October, 2014, http://bze.org.au/landuse

Wedderburn-Bisshop, G., Longmire, A., Rickards, L., “Neglected Transformational Responses: Implications of Excluding Short Lived Emissions and Near Term Projections in Greenhouse Gas Accounting”, International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses, Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2015, pp.11-27. Article: Print (Spiral Bound). Published Online: August 17, 2015, http://ijc.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.185/prod.269

Mahony, P., “The Electric Cow”, Terrastendo, 27th May, 2014, https://terrastendo.net/2014/05/27/the-electric-cow/

Russell, G., “Bulbs, bags, and Kelly’s bush: defining ‘green’ in Australia”, 19 Mar 2010 (p. 10) (http://hec-forum.anu.edu.au/archive/presentations_archive/2010/geoffrussell-hec-talk.pdf), which utilised: Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, State of the Environment Report 2006, Indicator: LD-01 The proportion and area of native vegetation and changes over time, March 2009; and ABS, 4613.0 “Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends”, Jan 2010; and ABS 1301.0 Australian Year Book 2008, since updated for 2009-10, 16.13 Area of crops

Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Themes – Environment, Land and Soil, Agriculture”, citing World Resources Institute, World Resources, 1998-99: A Guide to the Global Environment, Washington, DC, 1998, p. 157, cited in “The Ethics of What We Eat” (2006), Singer, P & Mason, J, Text Publishing Company, p. 216

Mahony, P., “Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point”, Terrastendo, 5th October, 2015, https://terrastendo.net/2015/10/05/chickens-pigs-and-the-amazon-tipping-point/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Ocean” (undated), http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html

Atwood, T.B., Connolly, R.M., Ritchie, E.G., Lovelock, C.E., Heithaus, M.R., Hays, G.C., Fourqurean, J.W., Macreadie, P.I., “Predators help protect carbon stocks in blue carbon ecosystems”, published online 28 September 2015, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2763.html

Macreadie, P., Ritchie, E., Hays, G., Connolly, R., Atwood, T.B., “Ocean predators can help reset our planet’s thermostat”, The Conversation, 29th September, 2015, https://theconversation.com/ocean-predators-can-help-reset-our-planets-thermostat-47937

Stehfest, E, Bouwman, L, van Vuuren, DP, den Elzen, MGJ, Eickhout, B and Kabat, P, “Climate benefits of changing diet” Climatic Change, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2 (2009), 83-102, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6 (Also http://www.springerlink.com/content/053gx71816jq2648/)

Australian Conservation Foundation, “Meat Free Week: eat less, care more, feel good”, 17th March, 2014, http://www.acfonline.org.au/news-media/news-features/meat-free-week-eat-less-care-more-feel-good

Mahony, P., “The real elephant in AYCC’s climate change room”, Terrastendo, 5th September, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/09/05/the-real-elephant-in-ayccs-climate-change-room/

Mahony, P. “Do the math: There are too many cows!”, Terrastendo, 26th July, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/07/26/do-the-math-there-are-too-many-cows/

Harper, L.A., Denmead, O.T., Freney, J.R., and Byers, F.M., Journal of Animal Science, June, 1999, “Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle”, J ANIM SCI, 1999, 77:1392-1401, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10375217; http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/77/6/1392.full.pdf

Eshel, G., “Grass-fed beef packs a punch to environment”, Reuters Environment Forum, 8 Apr 2010, http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-punch-to-environment/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014”, http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2014/en/

Image

Paris Climate Change Conference 2015 Photo © Delstudio | Dreamstime.com

Tags animal agriculture, chickens, climate, climate change, environment, livestock, Pigs, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment, Uncategorized

Action on livestock is essential if we are to strike targets

November 7, 2015 //

I recently outlined some questions I had submitted to the organisers of a climate change forum held in Melbourne, Australia, relating to the “Striking Targets” paper prepared by climate change author, Philip Sutton. [1] [2] The purpose of Philip’s paper, which focuses on the fossil fuel sector, is to outline an approach for matching climate goals with climate reality. The forum was arranged by “Breakthrough: National Centre for Climate Restoration“. My questions and comments related to the impact of animal agriculture, and the fact that Philip had appeared to ignore the issue in his paper and elsewhere.

The forum itself provided little opportunity to discuss the issues I had raised. However, there was a brief discussion on my question, asking if Philip and the panel members were aware of the extent of livestock-related land clearing in Australia. The moderator asked the question on my behalf, and I did not have the opportunity to outline the extent of such clearing, which I had referred to in the online question.

In my view, the panelists’ responses did not directly address the question. However, one correctly pointed out that, when a 20-year “global warming potential” (GWP) is utilised (as opposed to the more common 100-year approach), the Australian livestock sector is responsible for more emissions than our stationary energy sector. That’s in a country with one of the highest per capita emissions globally, largely due to our heavy reliance on coal-fired power.

The 20-year approach is perfectly valid. The IPCC has said, “There is no scientific argument for selecting 100 years compared with other choices. The choice of time horizon is a value judgement because it depends on the relative weight assigned to effects at different times.” [3]

Quite apart from land clearing in Australia and elsewhere for cattle and sheep grazing, soy bean production for feed crops in the Amazon basin has the potential to trigger a key climate change tipping point. [Footnote 1] [4] The 60 billion chickens and 1.4 billion pigs raised and slaughtered per year are major recipients. [5] Around 90 per cent of the soy consumed in Australia is imported, mainly for intensive livestock feed. [6] As part of the global soy bean trade, it is a factor in the amount of soy produced in the Amazon. Soy bean production and other destructive agricultural activities could cease in that region if the world transitioned away from animals as a food source.

In my brief opportunity to comment at the forum, I mentioned some “emissions intensity” figures. Here they are, along with some others that I did not mention on the night [Footnote 2] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]:

Cement: 1 kg
Aluminium: 15.6 kg
Beef (grass-fed, global average): 209 kg (with 20-year GWP) or 102 kg (with 100-year GWP)
Beef (grass-fed and grain-fed combined global average): 138 (with 20-year GWP) or 68 (with 100-year GWP)
Beef (grass-fed and grain-fed combined average for Oceania): 74 kg (with 20-year GWP) or 36 kg (with 100-year GWP)
Soy beans: 2 kg
Legumes: 3.5 kg

Figure 1: Emissions intensity (kg CO2-e per kg of product – GWP20)

Some points to note:

Cement’s figure has been rounded up from a weighted global average of 0.83 kg.
Beef’s emissions intensity is generally on a different paradigm to that of plant-based options.
At peak production, aluminium was consuming 16 per cent of Australia’s electricity, while representing less than 1 per cent of our gross domestic product. [12]
Its emissions intensity is dwarfed by that of beef, and we produce more beef by weight than aluminium.
Oceania’s beef production is dominated by Australia.
Soy beans contain 47 per cent more protein than beef per kilogram. [13]

The livestock sector’s impact in the context of “Striking Targets”

Meaningful action on animal agriculture would seem to be consistent with many aspects of Philip’s “Striking Targets” paper. Here are some that seem particularly relevant in that context:

It is our interests and ethics that motivate us. Climate policy should be driven by self-interest and our moral concern for others, especially the most vulnerable majority of the world’s people and species.
Our goals need to ensure a climate regulated by natural processes rather than regular human intervention.
We need to transform lifestyles in order to achieve zero emissions.
We must be willing to pragmatically adopt measures that can deliver results no matter how unconventional. (Please note that the number of people avoiding animal products is growing rapidly, so such an approach may soon seem more conventional than at present.)
Draw down excess CO2.
Protect and maintain ecological systems. (If it’s valid to seek to protect those systems from climate change, then it’s valid to protect them from direct impacts such as livestock-related land clearing and industrial and non-industrial fishing techniques.)
Implement policy at emergency speed. (An emergency is an emergency, and half-measures arising from social, cultural and commercial conditioning over food consumption will not take us where we need to be.)
Ensure a safe transition to protect people, food production, other species and ecosystem services.
One of Philip’s “crucial action demands” is to “ban all new climate destructive investments” and to “switch to positive/neutral investments”.
Another is to “legislate to create a legally binding schedule of closure/conversion for all current additive sources of greenhouse gas emissions and other climate destructive actions“. (I am not necessarily suggesting this approach in relation to food production systems, as there may be other ways to achieve the necessary dietary transformation. I feel this demand and the one prior reflect Philip’s focus on fossil fuels.)
We need to “fully correct” humanity’s climate change mistake, “rather than just curtailing its magnitude”.

Conclusion

Philip and some panel members may regard me and others who promote the livestock issue in the same way that many governments and major corporations may regard them; as a nuisance. Over a period of several years, I have approached the Greens, Australian Youth Climate Coalition and others about this issue, so I am accustomed to that type of response. [14] [15] However, I am sure most of them would agree that, in relation to climate change generally, it is difficult to argue with the science. They simply need to extend that view to the livestock aspect.

Because Philip stresses the need for emergency action and seems averse to half-measures, his arguments should apply as much to the hugely emissions-intensive and destructive livestock sector, as they do to fossil fuels.

Author

Paul Mahony

Footnotes

Even in the absence of clear tipping points, climate feedback mechanisms create accelerating, non-linear changes, which are potentially irreversible.
Emissions intensity is a measure of units (by weight) of greenhouse gas emissions per corresponding unit of end product. The emissions intensity figures for livestock shown here have been sourced directly from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations or (in respect of the 20-year GWP) adjusted from the FAO’s 100-year figure. Apart from the combined global average figure, the 20-year figures are approximations, with the figure for grass-fed beef likely to be under-stated.

References

[1] Mahony, P., “Questions for Breakthrough climate forum”, Terrastendo, 1st November, 2015, https://terrastendo.net/2015/11/01/questions-for-breakthrough-climate-summit/

[2] Sutton, P., “Striking Targets: Matching climate goals with climate reality”, Breakthrough – National Centre for Climate Restoration, August, 2015, http://media.wix.com/ugd/148cb0_2cec8c5928864748809e26a2b028d08c.pdf

[3] Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” , pp. 711-712 [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

[4] Mahony, P., “Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point”, Terrastendo, 5th October, 2015, https://terrastendo.net/2015/10/05/chickens-pigs-and-the-amazon-tipping-point/

[5] FAOSTAT, Livestock Primary, Slaughter numbers, http://faostat3.fao.org

[6] Spragg, J., “Feed Grain Supply & Demand Report 2013-14: A report for the Feed Grain Partnership”, July 2014, https://www.aecl.org/assets/www.aecl.org/outputs/140730-FGP-Supply-and-Demand-Report-July-2014.pdf

[7] International Energy Agency, “Tracking Industrial Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions“, 2007, p. 25, https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/tracking-industrial-energy-efficiency-and-co2-emissions.html, http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/tracking2007SUM.pdf

[8] Australian Aluminium Council Ltd, “Climate Change: Aluminium Smelting Greenhouse Performance”, http://aluminium.org.au/climate-change/smelting-greenhouse-performance (Accessed 14th April, 2014)

[9] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Table 5, p. 24, Nov 2013, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

[10] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains: A global life cycle assessment”, Figure 12, p. 30, Nov 2013, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3461e/i3461e.pdf

[11] Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., & Key, T.J., “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”, Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1

[12] Hamilton, C, “Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change”, (2007) Black Inc Agenda, p. 40

[13] USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference at http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ via Nutrition Data at http://www.nutritiondata.com

[14] Mahony, P., “Some Critical Omissions from Climate Change Discussions”, Terrastendo, 28th December, 2012, https://terrastendo.net/2012/12/28/some-critical-omissions-from-climate-change-discussions/

[15] Mahony, P., “The real elephant in AYCC’s climate change room”, Terrastendo, 5th September, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/09/05/the-real-elephant-in-ayccs-climate-change-room/

Image

Storm front and lightning approach the Sunshine Coast near Caloundra, Queensland | Lucas_James (Flickr)| CC-Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Tags animal agriculture, climate, climate change, environment, livestock, philip sutton, striking targets, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

Questions for Breakthrough climate forum

November 1, 2015 //

In a recent article, I referred to questions I had raised over the past couple of years at public forums arranged by Australian climate action group, “Breakthrough: National Centre for Climate Restoration“. [1] The group “has been established to engage with a range of groups and activists to create the groundswell needed to build a new momentum for urgent climate restoration”.

I have cited the work of some of the group’s contributors many times in articles dealing with the need for emergency action in relation to the climate crisis. However, although two of the contributors wrote about animal agriculture’s impacts several years ago through the former Zero Emission Network, that aspect of the problem seems to be omitted from Breakthrough’s material.

A booklet prepared by another contributor, Philip Sutton, will be the subject of a panel discussion this week in Melbourne. In promoting the forum, the organisers have stated:

“Advocacy for the restoration of a safe climate calls for solutions that the world does not currently possess. The central question remains ‘is safe climate restoration possible and, if not, what level of action is now morally defensible and yet practically achievable?’ Join Breakthrough for this special panel discussion to examine and critique the recently published paper StrikingTargets [2] with author Philip Sutton.”

In addition to seeking “solutions that the world does not currently possess”, why not utilise those that we do? Why ignore action in relation to animal agriculture?

The panel for the forum comprises (using Breakthrough’s descriptions): Ben Courtice, Friends of the Earth Climate Campaigner; Andrea Bunting, Climate Activist, Researcher & Writer; Mark Wakeham, CEO Environment Victoria; David Spratt, Climate Policy Analyst; Adrian Whitehead, Save The Planet Campaign Manager.

Ben Courtice once commented on one of my articles, stating that I was incorrect in claiming that the forthcoming (at that time) Land Use plan of Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (University of Melbourne) would indicate that animal agriculture was responsible for around 50 percent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions after allowing for various factors, such as shorter-lived gases and a 20-year “global warming potential“. [3] [4] I assured him my information was correct, but there was no further comment. It has since been confirmed with the release of the plan and a related peer-reviewed journal article. [5]

I had also communicated with Environment Victoria at different times (commencing in April, 2011), asking why they had not commented on the impact of animal agriculture. Following my third request, they said they believed their resources would have most impact if they focused on the energy sector. That seems to be a common response from groups who ignore the livestock issue. I fail to see why they could not publish some comments, even if they were not willing to give it a high profile. Environment Victoria has since campaigned against cattle grazing in the highlands due to issues such as river protection, but not in relation to climate change.

Although not on the panel for the forthcoming discussion, Federal Greens member of parliament, Adam Bandt, is a Breakthrough contributor. I wrote to him about the livestock issue in 2011, but he did not respond. Also that year, I raised the issue with him at a community forum in the inner Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy. I referred to the fact that the Greens were intending to support the Labor Party in exempting agriculture from the carbon tax. Adam’s only comments were that it was difficult to measure methane emissions, and that some of the carbon tax revenue would be used in research. In my view, the first comment was not valid, and the second questionable. After a further attempt, I eventually received a response from a member of Adam’s office team, but there was no indication of meaningful action.

I had originally raised the issue with the Greens in 2008, and received very disappointing responses from Bob Brown’s office and Christine Milne at that time.

Despite these concerns, I was pleased to see that the organisers of the forthcoming discussion were inviting questions prior to the event. I’m including the questions that I have submitted here (with references added), as a means of highlighting what I consider to be some of the key concerns. Those concerns include the fact that an approach which ignores animal agriculture seems contrary to Breakthrough’s approach on other aspects of the climate crisis. I have referred to many of the issues in previous articles.

Quite apart from the issue of climate change, the “moral concern for others” expressed in “Striking Targets”, “especially for the most vulnerable majority of the world’s people and species” would seem consistent with a transition away from animal agriculture, which currently involves the forced breeding and slaughter of around 70 billion land animals per year, plus the death of trillions of sea creatures. The ratio of livestock to wildlife is now around 8 to 1, when only 10,000 years ago, all animals were wild.

Question 1

In “Climate Code Red: the case for emergency action” (2008) [6], Philip Sutton and David Spratt (as indicated by the sub-title) stressed the need for emergency action. They said (p. 145, with my capitals here):

“If left unchecked, the dynamics and inertia of our SOCIAL and economic systems will sweep us on to ever more dangerous change and then, most likely within a decade, to an era of catastrophic climate change.”

They quoted Winston Churchill from 1936:

“The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients of delays, is coming to a close. It its place we are entering a period of consequences.”

In “Striking Targets”, Philip’s measures to restore a safe climate include drawing down atmospheric CO2 and returning concentrations to pre-industrial levels

However, he does not talk about the critical role of animal agriculture.

Its impact arises from many inter-related factors, such as its inherent inefficiency as a food source; the massive scale of the industry; land clearing far beyond what would otherwise be required to satisfy our nutritional requirements; greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide; and other warming agents such as black carbon.

I raised the issue with Philip in a question at the Breakthrough Summit in June, 2014 and again at his “Post-Paris” presentation last month. Why is he not giving the issue the attention it requires?

James Hansen has said we will not reduce CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm (still well above pre-industrial levels) without massive reforestation and addressing the issue of soil carbon loss. [7] He has not stated it to my knowledge, but we will not enable forest and other wooded vegetation to regenerate to the required levels without a general move away from animal-based food products.

At the “Post-Paris” presentation, Philip said that reforestation might cause us to encroach on areas currently used for food production. However, a move away from animal agriculture would require far less land than at present. The issue was highlighted in a 2009 report from the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency in which the authors stated [8]:

“. . . a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food [was found] to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emissions would be reduced substantially.”

They said a plant-based diet would reduce climate change mitigation costs by 80%. A meat-free diet would reduce them by 70%. Their assessment was based on a target CO2 concentration of 450 ppm. The issue is even more critical when aiming for lower levels.

Similarly, in a 2013 paper, researchers from the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota stated [9]:

“The world’s croplands could feed 4 billion more people than they do now just by shifting from producing animal feed and biofuels to producing exclusively food for human consumption”.

The lead author, Emily Cassidy, has said:

“We essentially have uncovered an astoundingly abundant supply of food for a hungry world, hidden in plain sight in the farmlands we already cultivate. Depending on the extent to which farmers and consumers are willing to change current practices, existing croplands could feed millions or even billions more people.”

I respect much of the work of Philip and David. However, when witnessing people with that level of concern for the planet failing to meaningfully address the livestock issue, I feel a sense of frustration and despair.

We need to inform the general population of the true extent of the crisis, and the emergency measures required. Governments need to ensure that the environmental costs of animal agriculture are factored into the consumer price, thereby reducing demand and production, and causing consumers to seek low-emissions alternatives.

If interested, you can see more at my page Climate Change and Animal Agriculture. [Postscript: It includes many articles on the subject, including my recent article, Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point.]

Question 2

Expanding on my earlier question, have Philip and the panel considered the amount of land clearing in Australia for animal agriculture?

Supplementary material from a Feb 2015 journal paper commissioned by Meat & Livestock Australia conservatively interpreted figures from the Queensland government’s Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS) to estimate that from 1981 to 2010, over 8 million hectares (80,000 sq km) were cleared in that state for beef production. [10]

The extent of such clearing is equivalent to a 10 kilometre (6 mile) wide tract of land extending 3.3 times between Melbourne and Cairns. That’s similar to a 10 km wide tract of land winding around the US east coast 3.3 times from Boston to Miami. [Image and US comparison added for this article.]

Figure 1: Depiction of Queensland land area cleared for beef production 1981-2010

Clearing reduced but did not cease after a so-called ban was introduced at the end of 2006. The “ban” was lifted in 2013, and it is estimated that the extent of clearing tripled between 2009/10 and 2013/14.

Around 40% of the clearing was of re-growth, which highlights the fact that forest and other wooded vegetation will often regenerate if given the opportunity.

That’s just one example of livestock-related land clearing. In total, it represents around 70% of clearing in this country since European settlement. [11]

A report by the World Wildlife Fund has identified eastern Australia as one of eleven global “deforestation fronts” for the twenty years to 2030, due to livestock production. [12]

Question 3

Also, have Philip and the panel considered the impact of animal agriculture on the Great Barrier Reef?

We hear much about the impact of warming and increased acidity of the ocean, along with dredging, but very little about the 4.5 million head of cattle in the reef’s catchment area. [13] The Queensland Government’s 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement confirmed that grazing areas in the catchment were responsible for the following pollutant loads to the Great Barrier Reef lagoon: (a) 75 percent of suspended solids (sediment); (b) 54 percent of phosphorus; and (c) 40 percent of nitrogen. [14]

The release of nitrogen and phosphorus, and the associated nutrient enrichment, contributes significantly to outbreaks of Crown of Thorns starfish, which have had a massive impact on the reef.

Even without climate change, the reef’s demise would probably be assured due to cattle grazing.

Conclusion

We are running out of time to influence the Earth’s climate system in a positive manner. There may be some hope if we focus on animal agriculture in addition to other issues, such as fossil fuels. If we do not, then climate change campaigners may be well-advised to simply lie on the beach and relax, rather than worrying about its eventual inundation by sea water, as there is little point being concerned over inevitable events.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Facebook, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)

References

[1] Mahony, P., “Activist, not Automaton”, Viva la Vegan, 14th October, 2015, http://www.vivalavegan.net/community/articles/1108-activist-not-automaton.html

[3] 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/

[4] Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute of The University of Melbourne, “Zero Carbon Australia – Land Use: Agriculture and Forestry – Discussion Paper”, October, 2014, http://bze.org.au/landuse

[5] Wedderburn-Bisshop, G., Longmire, A., Rickards, L., “Neglected Transformational Responses: Implications of Excluding Short Lived Emissions and Near Term Projections in Greenhouse Gas Accounting”, International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses, Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2015, pp.11-27. Article: Print (Spiral Bound). Published Online: August 17, 2015, http://ijc.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.185/prod.269

[6] Spratt, D and Sutton, P, “Climate Code Red: The case for emergency action”, Scribe, 2008, pp. 141 and 145

[7] Hansen, J; Sato, M; Kharecha, P; Beerling, D; Berner, R; Masson-Delmotte, V; Pagani, M; Raymo, M; Royer, D.L.; and Zachos, J.C. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”, 2008. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

[8] Stehfest, E, Bouwman, L, van Vuuren, DP, den Elzen, MGJ, Eickhout, B and Kabat, P, “Climate benefits of changing diet” Climatic Change, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2 (2009), 83-102, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6 (Also http://www.springerlink.com/content/053gx71816jq2648/)

[9] Cassidy, E.S., et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 034015 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015, cited in University of Minnesota News Release, 1 Aug 2013, “Existing Cropland Could Feed 4 Billion More”, http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2013/UR_CONTENT_451697.html

[10] Wiedemann, S.G, Henry, B.K., McGahan, E.J., Grant, T., Murphy, C.M., Niethe, G., “Resource use and greenhouse gas intensity of Australian beef production: 1981–2010″, Agricultural Systems, Volume 133, February 2015, Pages 109–118, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X14001565 and http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0308521X14001565/1-s2.0-S0308521X14001565-main.pdf?_tid=e4c5d55e-fc16-11e4-97e1-00000aacb362&acdnat=1431813778_b7516f07332614cd8592935ec43d16fd, cited in Mahony, P. “Emissions intensity of Australian beef”, Terrastendo, 30th June, 2015, https://terrastendo.net/2015/06/30/emissions-intensity-of-australian-beef/

[11] Clearing percentage derived from Russell, G. “The global food system and climate change – Part 1”, 9 Oct 2008, http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/10/09/the-global-food-system-and-climate-change-part-i/, which utilised: Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, State of the Environment Report 2006, Indicator: LD-01 The proportion and area of native vegetation and changes over time, March 2009; and ABS, 4613.0 “Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends”, Jan 2010; and ABS 1301.0 Australian Year Book 2008, since updated for 2009-10, 16.13 Area of crops.

[12] World Wildlife Fund, “WWF Living Forests Report”, Chapter 5 and Chapter 5 Executive Summary, http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/lfr_chapter_5_executive_summary_final.pdf; http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/living_forests_report_chapter_5_1.pdf

[13] Brodie, J., Christie, C., Devlin, M., Haynes, D., Morris, S., Ramsay, M., Waterhouse, J. and Yorkston, H., “Catchment management and the Great Barrier Reef”, pp. 203 & 205, Water Science and Technology Vol 43 No 9 pp 203–211 © IWA Publishing 200, http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/public/groups/everyone/documents/journal_article/jcudev_015629.pdf

[14] Kroon, F., Turner, R., Smith, R., Warne, M., Hunter, H., Bartley, R., Wilkinson, S., Lewis, S., Waters, D., Caroll, C., 2013 “Scientific Consensus Statement: Sources of sediment, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment”, Ch. 4, p. 12, The State of Queensland, Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat, July, 2013, http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/scientific-consensus-statement/sources-of-pollutants.aspx

Images

Lightning over Ipswich during the storms which struck Queensland and New South Wales on 17 November 2012 |adrenalinmatt (Flickr)| CC-Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Map from http://www.streetdirectory.com.au (used with permission and adapted by author)

Updates

Reference to “summit” changed to “forum”, and comments added in relation to: Bob Brown and Christine Milne; solutions that we currently possess; the number of animals slaughtered; and Boston and Miami.

Tags Animal Rights, climate change, environment, livestock, philip sutton, striking targets, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

Letters in newspapers

October 17, 2015 //

Here’s a selection of my letters published in newspapers since early 2008, listed under the headings:

animal rights;
climate change in general;
environmental (incl. climate change) impacts of animal agriculture; and
politics.

I hope they provide a reasonable perspective of some of the key issues we face.

Animal Rights

“Mulesing”, The Age, 10th March, 2008

The wool industry’s cruel practice of cutting skin from the backsides of sheep without pain relief (8/3) has come back to bite it in the bum.

“Only skin deep”, The Sunday Age, 16th March, 2008

The green marketing push by the Fur Council of Canada and other (“Industry Pushes ‘Green’ Fur Coats”, 9/3) is just another example of mankind’s appalling lack of ethics when it comes to the treatment of animals. It seems that if the trade can make a dollar, allegedly without damaging the environment, then no amount of physical or psychological pain experienced by our animal friends matters.

Even if you were to accept the council’s dubious claims of humane practices, then you should also consider where else your fur might come from. You’d owe it to yourself to see what happens (for example) on Chinese fur farms. The information’s not hard to find through reputable sources on the internet, but be warned: an animal being skinned alive is not a pretty sight.

“Nothing humane about pig farming”, The Age, 10th August, 2008

It’s great to see that the campaign by Animals Australia in favour of pigs is having an impact.

Consider how these intelligent and caring animals are treated. Most pigs are kept indoors for their entire life, often in horrifically confined spaces. Whilst still piglets, they are routinely castrated, have their teeth and ears clipped and their tails docked, all without pain relief.

And don’t assume that there’s anything humane about the slaughter process for the young pigs that are sent to the abattoir.

Most production animals have little or no protection under Australia’s “prevention of cruelty” legislation, due to exemptions contained in the various state and territory acts. It’s important that people know of our production animals’ plight, so that they can make informed purchasing decisions.

“If you dare”, The Sunday Age, 8th February, 2009

The “bacon explosion” is a grotesque indulgence at the expense of animals. However, the animals might have the last laugh, as consumers face another significant health risk in addition to heart failure.

The World Cancer Research Fund has recommended against consuming processed meat (including bacon and sausage meat) because of the cancer risk. Indulge if you dare.

“Get meat off the menu”, The Sunday Age, 15th March, 2009

How sad to see pigs and other animals continuing to be treated as commodities (“Offal on again as diners rediscover blood & guts”, 8/3), with a chef gleefully hoeing into a pig’s ear whilst a pig’s head sits on the plate in front of him.

We’ve been conditioned over the years to believe that we need to eat meat, when a simple ethical approach demands otherwise.

Despite what we’re told by commercial interests (the full-page ad for red meat in the same paper was a good example), it’s easy to follow an incredibly varied, delicious and healthy diet without consuming animal products. It’s also much better for the planet.

In the words of Henning Steinfeld from the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organisation, “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

“Double standards”, The Sunday Age, 23rd August, 2009

I was interested to read that ”pig arks” have become big business in Great Britain; they’re like a backyard kennel for pigs, before they’re sent to the abattoir for slaughter (”Have a butcher’s at the latest trend”, 16/8.)

This trend should help highlight the double standards that exist in our society’s treatment of animals. While dogs are often pampered, many in the West regularly eat other intelligent, sensitive and sociable beings.

In physical and psychological terms, the treatment of pigs in factory ”farms” is horrendous. In certain countries, the breeding and slaughter of dogs for human consumption is big business.

Do Australians who eat pigs and other animals have any right to complain?

“Such a cruel ‘sport’”, The Age, 5th November, 2009

Something to consider amid the hype surrounding the spring racing carnival is that a large percentage of horses bred for racing never make it to the track due to injury or lack of ability. They end up at the slaughterhouse for foreign meat markets or the knackery for pet food.

The life of many that race is miserable, with excessive periods of confinement and health problems. These include stomach ulcers due to the artificial feeding cycle and bleeding in the lungs due to excessive vigorous exercise. It is a profit-making industry and the horses are considered to be an expendable commodity. Everyone loves a winner, but for how long and at what cost to the horse?

“A woolly way”, The Age, 16th December, 2009

Sarah Long (Letters, 14/12) has hit the nail on the head in pointing out that breeding sheep to have more wrinkles and skin folds than normal, to increase the yield of wool (and profits), makes them prone to flystrike.

The problem could be avoided if farmers stopped breeding sheep that way, rather than barbarically cutting large pieces of skin from their backsides without pain relief.

Adelaide University research suggests that bare-breech sheep cut more wool and produce more lambs than other types, which may help to offset the higher initial cost.

“Cruelty out of sight”, The Age, 4th June, 2010

The outcry over jumps racing indicates that many people find animal cruelty abhorrent when it’s brought to their attention. While that form of cruelty is visible, let’s not forget institutionalised cruelty that is out of sight in our industrial farming system.

An example is the lifelong confinement of breeding sows, whose first glimpse of sunshine occurs on the day they’re sent for slaughter. Many are driven insane by horrific conditions.

Until we can show universal compassion for other sentient beings, we should stop pretending we live in a civilised society.

“Not so glamorous”, The Sunday Age, 3rd November, 2010

We were told that So You Think carried the hopes of a nation into the Melbourne Cup (The Age, 2/11). Isn’t that a little over the top?

It’s just another example of an industry being perpetuated, with gambling, alcohol, expensive clothes and media coverage being just some of the associated products that people are being brainwashed into buying. This nation has far more important things to think about than that.

And let’s not forget the plight of the horses. Many that are bred for racing end up on foreign dinner tables or in pet food. Most racehorses experience miserable lives, with excessive periods of confinement and health problems such as stomach ulcers due to the artificial feeding cycle and bleeding in the lungs due to excessive vigorous exercise.

It doesn’t sound very glamorous to me.

“Endangered species”, The Age, 26th September, 2011

It is wonderful that a key shark fishery has been closed in order to protect dolphins and sea lions (The Saturday Age, 24/9). However, another valid reason for closing it would have been the protection of the sharks themselves. Those magnificent creatures evolved around 400 million years ago, but many species are now facing extinction. For shark fin soup alone, 38 million sharks are killed each year in horrific circumstances. Let us do our best to preserve this natural wonder before it’s too late.

“Reduce dairy farming”, The Age, 30th November, 2011

It is pleasing that the dairy industry’s massive levels of water consumption are recognised (”Bid to end fighting over rivers”, The Age, 28/11). At various times, it has been responsible for 34 per cent of Victoria’s water consumption and 35 per cent of the Murray-Darling basin’s, primarily due to the flood irrigation of pasture for cattle.

The most effective way to reduce the industry’s environmental impacts is to consume fewer of its products, which would benefit cows and human health. Casein, the main protein in cows’ milk, is so durable and sticky it is used in some glues. Casein and other dairy milk proteins are responsible for many human health problems.

Further, dairy cows are continually impregnated to produce milk, and are usually separated from calves a day after birth, at huge distress to both. The calves are generally slaughtered (many within a few days of birth) or retained to live the same miserable lives as their mothers.

“Monsters on the line”, The Age Travel section, 3rd March, 2012

The “monster” fish that Jeremy Wade describes (Traveller, February 18-19) are magnificent creatures that have evolved to survive and thrive in their natural environment. That’s in contrast to human monsters who invade others’ territories to pursue “an eccentric pastime”, willingly drawn by “their sport’s appeal”.

“Pigs more than food”, The Sunday Age, 3rd June, 2012

The image of the piglet in the restaurant kitchen (”Pork back in flavour as chefs put a twist in little piggy tale”, 27/5) reminded me of similar images I have seen from overseas of dogs being cooked. The comparison runs deeper than the culinary delights provided by both animals; pigs are as intelligent, sociable and fun-loving as any dog.

That the pigs mentioned in the article were allegedly free range doesn’t help much. Patty Mark, founder of Animal Liberation Victoria, has seen free-range pigs in the slaughterhouse. She has been quoted as saying: ”One pig was absolutely terrified, screaming and frothing at the mouth. She could see pigs bleeding out before her.”

It’s time we learnt to respect pigs and other animals as the fascinating creatures they are, rather than raising them as food.

“Legalised cruelty”, The Sunday Age, 21st October, 2012

Bacon baklava and other ”super tasty treats” disguise the sinister side of the pig meat industry (”And for just desserts, can we tempt you with some bacon baklava?”, 14/10).

Legalised cruelty comes in many forms. How about the widespread mutilation of piglets a few days after birth without anaesthetic, including castration, tail docking, ear notching and teeth clipping?

Then there’s the confinement of sows day and night for months on end in sow stalls and farrowing crates so small that sows can’t even turn around. And the fact that most pigs never see daylight until the day they are sent to the slaughterhouse?

When will society decide that enough is enough?

“Culinary treats”, The Age, 21st January, 2013

The people of Britain and Australia should get over their hang-up about eating horse meat (The Saturday Age, 19/1). If we can eat cows, then we can eat horses. If we can eat pigs and lambs, we can eat dogs and cats. If farm animals exist for our culinary benefit, then other animals should also “step up to the plate”. With our rapidly growing population, they should accept that they will be required to help out sooner, rather than later. They are very popular components of the diet in many other countries.

Note: Just in case you’re wondering, yes, there was a lot of sarcasm in that one.

“Break the meat habit”, The Age, 30th December, 2013

The article on superbugs says: ”Australians love their antibiotics” (”A plague upon us”, Insight, 28/12). The problem is that they and others also love ”their” meat. The conditions in most animal-based food production facilities are so bad that antibiotics are routinely used in huge quantities to prevent infection, thereby creating most of the superbugs that we’re now contending with. If it’s not already too late, we urgently need to break our meat habit.

“Need a reason?”, The Sunday Age, 19th January, 2014

So most meat pies contain less than one third meat (”Tests reveal supermarket pies not even one-third meat”, theage.com.au, 12/1). The government standard says they must contain at least 25 per cent ”fat-free flesh”, which may, in fact, contain fat, along with animal rind, connective nerves, blood, blood vessels and, in the case of poultry, skin. It sounds like one more good reason to look after yourself, the animals and the planet by giving up meat and ”meat” products.

“Unethical addiction”, The Sunday Age, 4th May, 2014

Sam de Brito highlights that we are allowing an animal holocaust to proceed in our midst (”We are all Nazis when it comes to animal rights”, 27/4). Consistent with that notion, Georgie Mattingley says many of us have become complacent and close our eyes to what’s happening (”A vegetarian in the slaughterhouse”). However, Mattingley is wrong; the nation does not need meat. She proves as much by her consumption choices. The American Dietetic Association has stated meat is unnecessary for a healthy life. In terms of the economy, we can adapt to producing alternatives, with significant environmental benefits. What price must animals pay for society’s blind addiction to a product whose consumption breaches all notions of an ethical life?

“Cruelty part of the deal”, The Age, 3rd June, 2015 [Note 1]

Curtis Stone highlights the introduction of “sow stall-free” pork by Coles (“Chef of substance”, Epicure, 2/6). However, he does not mention that Coles and other retailers still sell meat from animals that have suffered horrendously due to exemptions contained in anti-cruelty legislation. In respect of pigs, those exemptions allow lifelong confinement indoors; 24/7 confinement in tiny farrowing crates for up to six weeks; and mutilation of piglets without anaesthetic, including castration, tail docking, ear notching and teeth clipping.

Coles chief executive, John Durkan, has said his company’s customers want to know that their products are cruelty-free. With that in mind, hopefully he and Curtis Stone will tell us all the facts.

Climate change in general

“Rudd the dud” published in The Australian, 17th December, 2008 (with edited versions in The Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph and The West Australian)

Kevin Rudd, you’re a dud. The climate change crisis requires leadership, not middle-ground marketing strategies aimed at matching the views of the majority. The problem is that the majority of people are yet to grasp the scale of the crisis we’re facing. A true leader would ensure they understood so that they’d support the drastic measures required to deal with the problem

Background: The letter was prompted by Rudd’s decision to have an emissions reduction target of only 5% (or 15% if other nations agreed). It was over a year before he scrapped plans for an emissions trading scheme. When he announced the target, he said that some say it’s too much, others say it’s not enough, so it must be about right (a little like Goldilocks). Science didn’t come into it. The only question was how would it look in the electorate. He was a massive let-down on climate change, after saying during the election campaign that it was the greatest moral challenge of our time. We had so much hope after suffering though 11 years of right-wing denialist John Howard as prime minister.

“Threat is real”, The Sunday Age, 28th December, 2008 [Note 2]

I can sympathise with farmers who are not convinced that climate change is real.

However, the fact is (for example) that the Greenland ice sheet is 2 kilometres thick (not 2 metres), 2,400 km long and up to 1,100 km wide. If it melts completely, sea levels will rise by 7 metres.

In their book “Climate Code Red”, David Spratt and Philip Sutton have explained how global warming is causing water on the melting surface to run across the ice, forming streams that widen into a torrent of water which pours through cracks that have formed and eventually the water finds its way to the base, lubricating the movement of the ice sheet over the rocky bottom.

This process feeds on itself, and is leading to a much faster deterioration than first anticipated. Then there’s the Antarctic ice sheet to think about.

Many feedback loops involved in climate change lead to accelerating global warming, e.g. loss of white ice exposes dark land, vegetation or water, which causes solar radiation to be absorbed rather than reflected, leading to further warming, more melting and so on.

Just because farmers can’t see such processes doesn’t mean they’re not happening.

The problem is that we’re at or near a point where those processes will accelerate no matter what we do. But let’s face the enormous challenge and mobilise our resources to grab whatever chance we have to save this magnificent planet.

“Pathetic”, The Australian, 12th March, 2009

How pathetic. The day after the Government introduces legislation that completely fails to recognise the extent to which we need to tackle climate change, The Australian’s headline is about a tiff over industrial relations between two Liberal MP’s who are behaving like recalcitrant schoolboys.

When will a politician stand up and accept that we’re facing a climate emergency?

“Australia must lead”, The Age, 28th April, 2009 [Note 3]

Even the conservative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there’s a 90 per cent probability that the problem has been caused by human activities. Yet all Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong can offer is an emissions reduction target of 5-15 per cent by 2020, and the establishment of the grandly titled Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute. I’d suggest that the Ponds Institute has more credibility.

The [Australian Conservation Foundation] and the ACTU estimate that a million new Australian jobs could be created by 2030 in tackling the crisis. Our overall emissions are higher than those of many European countries, and only 20 per cent less than those of Britain. A commitment by Australia would influence other countries such as China and India, which face extreme food shortages as the Himalayan glaciers and Asian monsoonal rains disappear.

“Real leaders needed”, The Age, 17th June, 2009

Leslie Cannold has indicated that apocalyptic headlines and catastrophic images of climate change provoke feelings of powerlessness among the public rather than a desire to act.

If only we again had political leaders like Roosevelt, Churchill and Curtin. In a time of war, they showed the way and channelled their nations’ efforts in overcoming the enormous challenges. In 1943, the percentage of gross domestic product attributable to the war effort in those three leaders’ countries ranged from 40 per cent to 55 per cent.

In modern-day Australia, our weak-kneed and short-sighted leaders are afraid to stand up to the fossil fuel lobby and transform our economy using green technologies and practices.

Such a transformation would lead us out of the global financial crisis and make us world leaders in energy supply.

We do face catastrophe if we fail to act, and much sooner than many people care to think.

“In thrall to lobbyists”, The Age, 9th November, 2009

Kevin Rudd is good at grandstanding and sounding earnest about climate change. Tragically, he is no better than John Howard or Malcolm Turnbull because, like them, he has been mesmerised by the fossil fuel lobby. Carbon dioxide takes hundreds of years to break down. Continuing to pump it out as we do is like blowing up a balloon.

If we keep going, something will have to give. Because of that the future is looking ugly.

“Too much hot air”, The Australian, 11th February, 2010

The climate change policies of both major parties are pathetic attempts to appear to be doing something meaningful, when in reality they are just continuing to pander to the fossil fuel lobby. In fact, with so much hot air to be produced by both sides prior to the election, they may significantly add to the problem

“Send smelters to cleaner countries”, The Age, 3rd March, 2010

So the extension of electricity contracts for Alcoa will secure 2500 jobs, utilising the world’s most greenhouse intensive energy source, brown coal (The Age, 2/3). However, in terms of jobs and the environment, we would be better off letting the aluminium industry go elsewhere. As they rely so heavily on coal (including brown coal), Australia’s smelters generate 2.5 times the world average of greenhouse gases per tonne of aluminium produced. Relocating them to other countries that utilise cleaner energy sources would significantly reduce global emissions.

In terms of employment, the ACTU and the Australian Conservation Foundation have estimated that Australia could create around 850,000 new jobs over the next 20 years by investing in green technologies, including renewable energy. That is more than enough to absorb the jobs that would have been lost at Alcoa and Loy Yang Power if the existing supply contracts had not been renewed.

“Gillard is no better”, The Age, 18th August, 2010

Maybe it’s the lack of media coverage about tipping points and runaway climate change that enables politicians to be so blase on the issue.

Although Abbott’s views are frightening and hard to believe from an aspiring PM, Julia Gillard’s policies are so insipid that she is no better.

We’re now told their campaigns are focusing on the economy. If we allow climate change to get out of hand (it may already be too late), then we can forget about a stable economy. The basic science is straightforward and we’re seeing more evidence every day. If we continue with business as usual, it will just be a question of how soon the signs become so bad that even deniers can’t ignore them, even if they continue to claim that the earth is flat and that gravity does not exist.

“A grubby association”, The Age, 17th February, 2012

Whether or not the payments to Professor Bob Carter were inappropriate, many credible sources have documented the grubby history of the denialist movement. An infamous tobacco industry memo, discovered through US legal proceedings, stated, ”Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the minds of the general public.” That is the strategy that has been adopted by many groups denying the reality of man-made climate change.

We need to cut through the smokescreen created by those with vested interests in thwarting meaningful action. If we do not act urgently, we may lose the opportunity to prevent civilisation-threatening outcomes.

“Climate cringe sank Rudd”, The Sunday Age, 4th March, 2012

I thank Maxine McKew for her insights into the tactics of Julia Gillard (”Divided they stand”, 26/2). However, it wasn’t just the scrapping of the emissions trading scheme in 2010 that turned many people against Kevin Rudd. It was his decision in December 2008 to target a measly 5 to 15 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 2000 levels, along with massive compensation to big polluters.

That was a pathetic, politically expedient response to what he had previously described as ”the great moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation”.

Now, as then, the climate change crisis requires inspirational leadership, not middle-ground marketing strategies aimed at matching the views of the majority or placating big business. A true leader would ensure that the majority of people understood the scale of the crisis, so that they would support the emergency measures required to deal with it. Neither Gillard nor Rudd are willing to do what is required.

A bonus would be that many of the measures would stimulate the economy well beyond the booming mining sector.

“Rising dangers”, The Age, 7th June, 2012

The Victorian government is being grossly irresponsible in relaxing planning laws dealing with sea-level rise (”State eases sea level regulations”, The Age, 6/6). The assumption of a 40 centimetre rise by 2040 is incredibly optimistic, as are the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which estimate a rise of 19-59 centimetres by 2100. Climate commissioner Tim Flannery argues that the IPCC is ”painfully conservative” because it ”works by consensus and includes government representatives from the US, China and Saudi Arabia, all of whom must assent to every word of every finding”. The IPCC’s projections do not allow for many factors, including the ice-sheet dynamics of Greenland and Antarctica. Dr James Hansen of NASA says that if ice-sheet disintegration continues to double every decade, we will be faced with sea-level rise of several metres this century. Good luck to anybody relying on Victoria’s new planning regulations.

“Policy will be futile”, The Sunday Age, 8th December, 2013

If Tony Abbott allows the fossil fuel sector to fulfil its massive expansion plans, then he’d better scrap his ”stop the boats” policy. Any efforts to turn back millions of climate refugees will be futile.

“Emergency action on grand scale is required”, The Age, 10th January, 2015

Adam Morton reports that only a modest deal, to be “built on over time”, is anticipated at the Paris climate summit. Unfortunately, the planet cannot wait. Part of the problem is the fact that negotiations are based on projections developed by the IPCC, an organisation described by Professor Tim Flannery as “painfully conservative”. Dire as they are, those projections do not allow for many critical climate feedback mechanisms that create a very real risk of runaway climate change. The climate crisis requires emergency action. During World War II, the governments of the US, UK, Germany, Japan and Australia were committing around 40-70 per cent of GDP to the war effort. Trillions of dollars were utilised in dealing with the global financial crisis. Where is the required monetary commitment to the greatest threat ever faced by the inhabitants of our magnificent planet? Feigned concern, platitudes and paper-thin treaties will achieve nothing.

“Coal”, The Age, 17th October, 2015

The Carmichael coal mine: A disaster for the climate and the barrier reef. Greg Hunt: A disaster as Environment Minister.

Environmental (incl. Climate Change) impacts of Animal Agriculture

“Feeling scared? Eat less meat”, The Age, 22nd February, 2008

Professor Garnaut’s ominous predictions on climate change (The Age, 21/2) must be taken seriously by us all. If we were under threat by another country, we’d do whatever it took to protect our homeland. Kevin Rudd needs to treat the current threat in the same way that Winston Churchill and the citizens of Britain treated the threat to their country and Western Europe in World War II.

An easy step, which no one in Australian politics seems to mention, is to eat less meat. Could it be that they’re afraid of a backlash from the livestock sector? Just look at the findings of UN bodies such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in regard to the disastrous effects of the livestock sector on climate change, land degradation, water use and loss of biodiversity. For example, the FAO has said that the livestock sector is “responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.”

The livestock sector converts vegetable protein to animal protein in an incredibly inefficient manner. It typically takes around 20 kilograms of vegetable protein fed to cattle, to produce one kilogram of animal protein. We’d use an awful lot less land, and produce far less greenhouse gas, if that vegetable protein came straight to us.

“Cause and effect”, The Sunday Age, 8th June, 2008

It’s pleasing to see a scientific approach being developed to measure Australia’s environmental impact on other nations and future generations (“Many unhappy returns, from a ravenous nation”, 1/6).

However, the article suggests the prospect of a tax on beef and dairy farmers in recognition of the livestock sector’s high greenhouse emissions.

Instead of a new tax, why not simply try to educate consumers? A tax on the producer would cause everyone to grumble but no-one could validly complain if well-informed consumers decided to purchase fewer beef and dairy products for environmental reasons.

Do most consumers know that the UN’s Food & Agriculture Organisation has said that livestock production is one of the major causes of the world’s most pressing environmental problems? It has reported that the livestock sector is responsible for a higher share of greenhouse gas emissions than the entire global transport system.

While governments are willing to spend money on advertisements that encourage us to turn off electrical appliances, they seem to say very little about our food choices. We simply don’t have time to muck around; they must help to convey the message.

“Food for thought”, 11th January, 2009, The Sunday Age

There was a very interesting juxtaposition of articles in The Sunday Age (4/1). Firstly, an article commenting on the State Government’s campaign encouraging Melburnians to reduce their average direct water consumption to 155 litres per day (“Water savers’ flush of pride”). Second, an alarming article on Australia’s disgraceful performance in regard to our most endangered wetlands (“Australia fails to act on wetland obligations”).

The first article mentioned that the government is spending $5.4 million on advertising as part of the Target 155 campaign. However, the government is not telling us that around 90 per cent of our water is consumed indirectly in the food we eat, and that animal-based food products are the worst offenders.

Direct household consumption only accounts for 8 per cent of this state’s water use, whilst the animal agriculture sector as a whole accounts for 51 per cent and the dairy industry 34 per cent. UNESCO says that a kilogram of beef requires five times more water to produce than a kilogram of rice and it takes 1,000 litres of water to produce 1 litre of milk. Plant-based agriculture is many times more water-efficient than the animal-based alternative.

If you want to save our great rivers and their associated wetlands, by far the most effective thing you can do is reduce your consumption of dairy and other animal-based food products in favour of plant-based alternatives.

“The methane factor”, The Age, 13th January, 2009

Coal-fired power has rightly been identified as a significant contributor to Australia’s (and particularly Victoria’s) shameful level of greenhouse emissions (“Victoria, the dirty state, shamed by emissions scorecard”, 12/1). However, the true impact of a more significant contributor is overlooked. It is the livestock sector.

Each year, Australia’s livestock produce around 3 million tonnes of methane. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, methane’s greenhouse impact is 72 times stronger over a 20 year time horizon than carbon dioxide’s. Those methane emissions equate to around 216 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is around 20% more than the emissions from all of Australia’s coal-fired power stations.

If people really want to help save the planet, they should consider their consumption of livestock products, particularly beef, dairy, lamb and wool.

“Up in smoke”, The Age, 28th September, 2009

I see that John Vogels suggests that the CSIRO should apologise to livestock and dairy farmers for daring to suggest that their products are harmful to the environment (”Hot air over CSIRO’s new enviro diet”, the nationaltimes.com.au, 25/9).

Does that mean (for example) that the Federal Government should apologise to tobacco farmers for requiring cigarette manufacturers to place health warnings on their products?

If we’re to have any chance of saving the planet, we must stop pandering to powerful interest groups and politicians who depend on such groups for electoral success.

“Cut the bull”, The Age, 1st January, 2010

Whether it’s Angus or another form of beef (“Bull and burgers: mincing their words”, The Age, 30/12), a massive rip-off is occurring, but it’s not the hamburger consumers who are suffering, it’s the rest of us. Beef consumption involves massive environmental externalities – the consequences of the production and delivery process experienced by parties not directly involved in the transaction.

According to the CSIRO, it takes between 50,000 and 100,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of beef, compared with: 2200 litres for one kilogram of soy beans, 2000 litres for rice, and 750 litres for wheat. That kilogram of soy beans contains about 50 per cent more high-quality protein than the beef.

Also, because of methane emissions, land clearing, refrigeration and high fossil fuel usage in production, beef’s contribution to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions is massive.

If we are serious about tackling our critical environmental problems, then the true cost of beef production and other forms of animal agriculture must be accounted for in the Federal Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme and in water pricing mechanisms.

“More than we can chew”, The Sunday Age, 21st February, 2010

It’s ironic that Guy Pearse uses hamburgers to compare the climate policies of the major parties. The emissions intensity of carcass beef is more than twice that of aluminium smelting. (Emissions intensity represents kilograms of greenhouse gas generated per kilogram of product.) To put that in perspective, aluminium smelting consumes 16 per cent of Australia’s (mainly coal-fired) electricity while our annual tonnage of beef production is around 10 per cent higher than that of aluminium. Policymakers need to start focusing on the horrendous impact of our diet on climate change.

“Too high a price for dairy”, The Sunday Age, 4th April, 2010

Something that seems to be missing from the discussion on the food bowl modernisation project (”Brumby’s water plan savaged”, 28/3) is the type of food that is being produced. For example, ABS figures show that dairy farming represents around 34 per cent of the state’s overall water consumption, which is largely due to the practice of flood irrigating pasture for cattle.

If domestic and export customers were required to pay prices that reflected the true environmental cost, then demand would fall and the dairy industry’s horrendous impact on our rivers would be greatly reduced.

“Better use of water”, The Age, 11th October, 2010

The debate on water allocations is being portrayed as a battle between the needs of irrigators and the environment. What they are not considering is the different types of irrigation.

The most recent ABS figures for Victoria (from 2004-05) show that animal agriculture represents 51 per cent of the state’s total water consumption; dairy farming alone represents 34 per cent, which is largely due to the practice of flood irrigating pasture for cattle.

Researchers at Cornell University in the US have reported that producing one kilogram of animal protein requires about 100 times more water than producing one kilogram of grain protein. CSIRO results for Australia are similar. Animal agriculture is inherently inefficient in satisfying nutritional requirements.

Governments may be under pressure from industry livestock groups to avoid mentioning such figures, but if they’re serious about saving our great rivers, it’s time they faced reality.

“Keep BBQ beef-free”, The Age, 21st March, 2011

It’s ironic that farmers in flooded areas of Victoria are welcoming Prince William with a barbecue (”Barbie fit for a prince eases flood pain”, The Saturday Age, 19/3).

More intense weather events are the direct result of climate change, with animal agriculture a major contributor. The beef they’re likely to eat is 2½ times as greenhouse gas-emission intensive as aluminium smelting, which consumes 16 per cent of Australia’s (mainly coal-fired) electricity.

Due primarily to related deforestation and methane emissions, Australia’s beef cattle are responsible for 1.3 times the emissions of electricity generation in Victoria. If they want a stable climate, the farmers would be better off cooking delicious and nutritious plant-based alternatives at the barbie.

“The Climate Agenda: Question 2”, The Sunday Age, 4th September, 2011

When are we going to hear more about the great elephant in the room – animal agriculture? The CSIRO and the University of Sydney have jointly reported that it is responsible for over 30 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. That’s conservative, as it is based on a 100-year time horizon for methane’s warming impact. According to the IPCC, methane is far more potent when measured over a 20-year time horizon.

Livestock’s impact is largely attributable to the inherently inefficient nature of animals as a food source for humans, with onerous demands on resources at every step of the supply chain. A key factor in livestock’s emissions is the massive amount of deforestation attributable to grazing and feed crop production, which the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency now ignores in its National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Animal agriculture is by far the greatest cause of deforestation globally and in Australia. The world’s pre-eminent climate scientist, James Hansen, says we will not overcome climate change without massive reforestation and significant cuts in emissions of non-CO2 climate forcers, such as methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone and black carbon. Meaningful action in that regard cannot be achieved without a general move towards a plant-based diet.

The livestock sector is becoming more active in alleging its products are benign. The industry’s arguments remind me of contributions by Ian Plimer and Bob Carter to the general climate change debate. A key problem is that social and cultural conditioning encourages key decision makers and most climate change activists to overlook the problem. They will happily absorb any propaganda that tells them it is all okay. The Greens say virtually nothing, possibly with one eye on the ballot box and potential scare campaigns by the livestock sector. One argument of the livestock sector is that production animals eat plants and crop residues that we wouldn’t. That practice is a key contributor to desertification in Africa, West Asia, the Americas and Australia.

If we are to have any chance of avoiding climate change tipping points and keep our planet habitable for humans and wildlife, we must not ignore the livestock issue.

Background: This was the “question” I posed in response to The Sunday Age’s “Climate Agenda” initiative. Here’s what The Sunday Age said when publishing my the questions (with mine finishing second in voting):

“Democracy, the OurSay website declares, is not a spectator sport. And there were few spectators when The Sunday Age asked readers to set the paper’s agenda on climate change. There were 567 questions posted and almost 20,000 votes cast. Then there was the debate – 4094 comments discussed the rights and wrongs of the questions. The Sunday Age partnered with the oursay.org website to create The Climate Agenda, an idea which aimed to open up reporting to broader ideas. Today, The Sunday Age answers the question which received the most votes – 5564 – and will report on the rest in coming weeks. The top 10 questions are listed below.”

I subsequently wrote about the “climate agenda” in my article “Does the standard of climate change reporting need beefing up?“.

“Halt the deforestation”, The Sunday Age, 11th December, 2011

Ross Garnaut is right to highlight the poor media reporting of climate change issues (“The science is good, the media bad, the situation worse: Garnaut”, The Age, 11/3). However, he has always overlooked the elephant in the room – animal agriculture.

The CSIRO and the University of Sydney have jointly reported that it is responsible for about 30 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

This is partly due to the inherently inefficient nature of animals as a food source for humans, with onerous demands on resources at every step of the supply chain.

A key factor in livestock’s emissions is the massive amount of deforestation attributable to grazing and feed crop production. The world’s pre-eminent climate scientist, James Hansen, says we will not overcome climate change without massive reforestation and significant cuts in methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Meaningful action in this regard cannot be achieved without a general move towards a plant-based diet.

“A beef with emissions”, The Sunday Age, 31st May, 2015

It’s pleasing that the methane emissions of Australia’s northern cattle herd are lower than thought (“CSIRO technologies transform cattle production and meat”, theage.com.au, 24/5). However, the finding still leaves beef’s greenhouse gas emissions over a 20-year time frame (which is critical for climate change tipping points) on a different paradigm from those of plant-based alternatives and other types of meat. The reduction in emissions is hardly an innovation; rather the research simply obtained a clearer picture.

“Costly pursuit”, The Age, 15th June, 2015

I can not sympathise with those who complain about high beef prices (“High beef prices cutting margins to the bone”, 13/6). The problem remains that the price does not allow for the huge environmental costs, which affect us all. Those costs should be fully incorporated within the price paid by the end user. In that way, demand would reduce dramatically, and we would be dealing realistically with a key contributor to climate change and other environmental problems.

Politics (incl. environmental issues)

“Politics”, The Age, 4th February, 2008

Where have the Greens been during the dredging debate? Seaweed’s green, just like forests. Is it a case of out of sight, out of mind?

“Transparent as silt”, The Age, 9th February, 2008

Port of Melbourne Corporation CEO Stephen Bradford says the approval process for the channel deepening project has been transparent (Letters, 8/2). So why did the terms of reference for the Supplementary Environment Effects Statement inquiry prevent expert witnesses from being cross-examined? The words of former premier Steve Bracks from 1999, ring loud: “When you’re proud of what you’re doing, you don’t want it hidden; you want people to know about it. You only keep secret the things that you’re ashamed of.”

“Gross distortions of truth”, The Age, 14th December, 2009

So Brumby’s Labor Government has again withheld critical information (”True cost of desal plant concealed”, The Age, 12/12). Yet again, the grand words of then Labor leader Steve Bracks from 1999 are shown to be hollow. He said a Labor government would differ from its predecessor through “leadership that believes in openness and accountability, that isn’t afraid of scrutiny, that credits the people of this state with the intelligence to make their own judgements”.

Thank you to The Age for highlighting such abuses of power. It’s time the broader media, and the population in general, scrutinised our governments more closely. They get away with murder because too many media outlets feed the public a diet of orchestrated 10-second sound grabs that either say nothing or grossly distort the truth.

“Too one-sided”, The Age, 20th December, 2009

So the Victorian Government has failed to deliver five of its promised ”significant policy statements” for 2009, including its ”respect” statement (”Excuses, yes, but report card stern on Brumby”, 13/12). I’m willing to forgive it for that one, as I already know what it’s going to say: ”All citizens are required to respect the Government, no matter how much it insults their intelligence or abuses their rights.”

“Mutiny”, The Age, 25th June, 2010

The mutiny by Labor MPs confirms what we all knew. Politicians’ main aim in life is to protect jobs: their own.

“Oblivious to crisis”, Sydney Morning Herald, 14th August, 2010

Not only is Tony Abbott a non- tech-head but he was oblivious to the concept of peak oil until asked a question on it at the 2008 Sydney Writers Festival. He tried to bluff his way through, but then had to admit he had not heard of it. Peak oil is when oil demand exceeds supply, with resulting shortfalls and a rapid escalation in prices.

So the man whose party claims to be the only responsible economic manager was, until two years ago, oblivious to an issue that will have profound impacts on the global economy and society generally, and requires us to pursue renewal energy solutions without delay.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

Main Image

Newspaper Photo © Imagestore | Dreamstime.com

Other Images

Sammy Frost (now at Green Pastures Sanctuary Waroona, Western Australia)

Lightning, night storm © Petr Mašek | Dreamstime.com

Cattle at sunset © Anthony Brown | Dreamstime.com

Parliament House in Canberra, Australia © Dan Breckwoldt | Dreamstime.com

Notes

1. The Age’s letters editor replaced my “who” with “that”.

2. Reference to “Arctic ice sheet” deleted due to duplication (as Greenland mentioned).

3. Australian Conservation Foundation referred to in lieu of CSIRO. The figure of 1 million jobs was based on the Age article “Rudd ignores better options after pressure from industry” of 20th April, 2009, by James Norman, which referred to “nearly 1 million new green jobs”. The relevant report, “Green Gold Rush”, actually used a figure of 850,000.

Tags animal agriculture, animal cruelty, Animal Rights, climate, climate change, environment, livestock, sustainability

Categories animal cruelty, Animal Rights, Climate Change, Environment

Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point

October 5, 2015 //

iStock_000007740596Small_500_335

Our climate is subject to many potential tipping points, where a small change in human activity can lead to abrupt and significant changes in earth systems, with catastrophic and irreversible impacts. Feedback mechanisms that form part of the process could lead to runaway climate change over which we will have little or no control.

Possible tipping points include [1]:

reduction in area and volume of Arctic sea ice;
disintegration of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets;
thawing permafrost (frozen soil) releasing methane and carbon dioxide;
melting sub-sea hydrates also releasing methane;
dieback of the Amazon rainforest.

This post considers the Amazon rainforest.

Although clearing for cattle pastures is the main driver of Amazon deforestation, feed production for the beef, poultry, pig meat and other sectors is also a critical factor.

A new perspective based on potential consequences

The comparative emissions intensity of various food products is often considered when reviewing their climate change impacts. Emissions intensity is a measure of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product, typically measured by weight. The emissions intensity of meat from ruminant animals, such as cows and sheep, is extremely high relative to most other food sources. Two key reasons are: methane emissions from the process of enteric fermentation in the animals’ digestive systems, releasing methane; and land clearing for pasture, releasing carbon dioxide.

Although the emissions intensity figures of chicken and pig meat are multiples of most plant-based products, they represent a small fraction of beef’s figure. Accordingly, chicken and pig meat have generally received less attention than beef in the context of climate change.

However, we are poised on the edge of a climate change precipice, where a relatively small step can mean disaster. [2] Feed production for the chicken and pig meat industries has the potential to be that step, with reduced consumption potentially being an essential measure in our efforts to overcome climate change. When there is little or no buffer for avoiding catastrophe, all methods of doing so must be addressed.

What is the problem with feed crops?

It could be argued that any agricultural plantation in the Amazon basin and elsewhere represents an environmental problem. That’s true, but the problem is magnified in regard to animal feed, due to the gross and inherent inefficiency of animals as a food source. The inefficiency is demonstrated by comparative feed conversion ratios of various livestock production systems, as shown in Figure 1. The researchers determined the figures by analysing between twenty-nine and eighty-three studies per item. [3]

Figure 1: Feed conversion ratios (kg feed protein required per kg of animal protein produced)

The inverse figures show relative efficiency of animal-based food production systems in converting plant-based feed proteins.

Figure 2: Feed protein conversion efficiency of livestock production systems

The inefficiencies mean that we require far more land and other resources than would be required if we utilised plant-based sources directly for our nutritional requirements. Although a cow raised for meat will generally eat far more grass than grain, the problem of extensive land use remains, with forests cleared for pasture, natural grasslands degraded, and carbon released from soil through erosion.

The Amazon tipping point

Even without land clearing for agriculture and other purposes, due to a persistent El Nino state leading to drying over much of the Amazon basin, its rainforest is predicted to die if temperatures reach 3°C -4°C above pre-industrial levels. In its natural state, much of the precipitation in the Amazon is recycled, but such recycling would reduce significantly at that temperature range, contributing to the permanent loss of rainforest. [4]

Does this mean we can save the Amazon rainforest if we keep temperatures below that range?

Not necessarily. Quite apart from a general increase in temperatures and the fact that levels below 2°C could trigger feedbacks leading to higher temperatures, we are pushing the rainforest toward a critical tipping point, largely arising from excessive fragmentation. Such fragmentation can lead to general drying and an increased propensity for fires and other causes of loss. Studies published in late 2014 and early 2015 documented the extremely adverse long-term effects of forest fragmentation, including carbon losses far in excess of what was previously believed. Much of the fragmentation arises from agriculture, including livestock feed crops. [5] [6]

Growth in livestock and related feed crop production

More than 85 percent of global soybean production is used in livestock feed. The figures for wheat are 20 percent, and corn 50 percent. [7]

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is predicting an increase of 64 percent in global meat consumption between 2010 and 2050, with chicken and pig meat leading the way. [8]

Much of the increase is coming from China, which produces 50 percent of the world’s pig meat (from a pig population of 482 million), and 20 percent of poultry meat (primarily from a chicken population of 4.835 billion).

The projected increases maintain the trends of the past twenty years, as shown in Figure 3, and the increase in soybean production shown in Figure 4. [9] Global soy production has grown tenfold in the past fifty years, and has been instrumental in enabling low cost meat and dairy production. [10]

Figure 3: Global chicken and pig meat production 1993-2013 (kilotonnes)

Figure 4: Global soy bean production 1993-2013 (kilotonnes)

Brazil’s share of global soybean production increased from 22.6 percent in 1994/95 (equal to 43 percent of USA production) to 31.6 percent in 2012/13 (on par with USA at around 82 million tonnes). Its production more than tripled in that time, while global production more than doubled. [11]

China liberalised its soy imports in the mid-1990s, and by 2005 was importing half the world’s traded soybeans, with rapid acceleration since then. Figure 5 depicts growth in imports for part of that period. [12]

Figure 5: Soybean Production, Consumption and Imports in China 1964-2011

Two-thirds of the demand for Brazilian soy comes from China and the European Union. [13] In May, 2014, the United States Department of Agriculture was estimating that China’s soy bean imports for 2014/15 would be 72 million tonnes. The second-ranked importer was the European Union, with 12.5 million tonnes. With domestic production of 12 million tonnes, China’s total consumption was 84 million tonnes, up from approximately 70 million tonnes in 2011 (including imports of 59 million tonnes that year). [14]

The problem is exacerbated by the relatively high proportion of soybean meal in Chinese pig feed (estimated at 20-30 percent) and chicken feed (25-40 percent). [15]

There are signs that China may also liberalise corn imports, rather than maintaining its historic target of 95 percent self-sufficiency. In 2011, Morgan Stanley estimated that around 70 percent of the country’s corn production was used in animal feed, 5 percent in food for the human population, and the balance for industrial purposes. [16] The crop is far more water and nutrient intensive than soy, so any expansion of imports could have major implications for producing nations, including Brazil. [17]

The Amazon soy moratorium and other measures are failing

In 2006, various producers commenced a soy moratorium, whereby they committed to avoid trading soy from areas within the Amazon that had been cleared after 24th June that year. Brazil’s Ministry of the Environment joined the moratorium in 2009, and it has been endorsed by major retailers. Safeguards are supposedly strengthened by the fact that Brazil also has strong logging regulations, and requires large land owners in the Amazon to maintain at least 50 percent of their holdings in native forest.

The moratorium is due to expire in May, 2016, by which time the industry argues that Brazil’s environmental governance will be robust enough to justify concluding it. [18] However, there is strong evidence to the contrary, including a recent doubling in the rate of deforestation.

Here are some of the problems described by journalist Richard Schiffman after consulting with (amongst others) Dr Philip Fearnside, a Research Professor in the Department of Ecology at Brazil’s National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA) [19], [20]:

There is a lack of enforcement and a climate of impunity. For example, only around 1 percent of fines imposed by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) are collected. The agency is under-funded and under-staffed.
The practice of timber laundering is widespread, whereby trees are illegally harvested and given clean documentation to facilitate their sale.
There is a high degree of legal ambiguity in land title, which assists illegal deforestation operators seeking to avoid detection.
Farmers routinely remove rainforest in order to plant crops such as rice and corn (which are not subject to the moratorium) for a short period, and then gradually change to soy.
President Dilma Rousseff, despite pledging zero tolerance for deforestation, has aligned herself with the so-called ruralistic bloc, a coalition of wealthy farmers and agribusiness organisations that helped re-write land-use laws in their own favour.
Rousseff appointed Katia Abreu, a former rancher and head of Brazil’s Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock, as minister for agriculture. Abreu has been nick-named the “chain saw queen” by environmentalists. She has complained that environmentalists and the indigenous population have been thwarting progress.
Rousseff has also appointed Aldo Rebelo as the minister for science. He has said that talk of global warming is “scientism”, not science. He claims it is a tool used by Western imperialists to control poor nations.
The Forest Code was introduced in 2012, which removed crucial aspects of rainforest protection and provided an amnesty for those who violated environmental laws prior to 2008. There is now an expectation of future amnesties for others who clear illegally.
A new highway is planned to run from the city of Manaus through the heart of the Amazon to the so-called “arc of deforestation” in the south, which has been largely cleared for soy plantations. Roads provide access and act as a catalyst for further deforestation.
The eventual completion of dozens of new dams (which represent a significant problem in their own right) and the Sao Luiz do Tapajos hydroelectric project will result in unemployed construction workers settling in the hinterland and clearing rainforest for farms.

The problems are exacerbated by warming conditions arising from El Nino and the Atlantic Dipole.

El Nino leads to drying, mainly in the northern Amazon, and greatly increases the likelihood of forest fires, as occurred in 1982, 1997 and 2006, compared to only four major fires in the previous 2,000 years. El Nino conditions have again been developing during 2015. [21]

Whereas El Nino is caused by surface water warming in the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Dipole is a warm area of water in the North Atlantic, affecting south-western areas of the Amazon, including droughts in those areas in 2005 and 2010.

Globally, according to a 2015 study by researchers based at the University of Maryland, the rate of tropical deforestation increased by 62 percent between the decades 1990-2000 and 2000-2010. The findings challenge a 2010 estimate from the FAO, which relied on self-reporting by relevant governments. The new estimate is based on Landsat satellite image data. It indicates that the largest increase occurred in tropical Latin America, with most clearing occurring in Brazil. [22]

The trend has continued, with Brazil’s rate of tree cover loss increasing by more than 16 percent between 2013 and 2014. [23]

Consumption in all countries contributes to the Amazon problem

Although China’s livestock sector is the major global consumer of traded soy products, consumption in any country contributes to the problem. In a country such as Australia, around 90 percent of the soy that is consumed is imported, mainly for intensive livestock feed. [24] The trade is global, and any demand pressure contributes to an increase in overall supply. Conversely, reduced demand from one country may reduce production in any other country, including those not holding the initial supply contract. The reason is that production capacity may be freed in the initial supplier nation, enhancing its ability to compete for alternative markets that are being supplied by competitor nations.

Accordingly, to the extent that livestock producers in a country such as Australia import soybeans from any nation, reduced Australian consumption can reduce soybean production in the Amazon. Reduced consumption of locally-produced soybeans by North American livestock producers can have the same effect.

China may be willing to act

China has recently announced major initiatives in dealing with fossil fuel emissions, and it has much to lose if other necessary mitigation measures are not adopted. Climate change author, David Spratt, has stated [25]:

“Taken together with those on the neighbouring Tibetan plateau, the Himalayan-Hindu Kush glaciers represent the largest body of ice on the planet outside the polar regions, feeding Asia’s great river systems, including the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze and Huang He. The basins of these rivers are home to over a billion people from Pakistan to China. . . . In China, 23 per cent of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt provides the principal dry season water source. The implications of the loss of the Himalayan ice sheet are global and mind numbing, but such a calamity rarely rates a mention in Australia.”

Faced with this frightening reality, Chinese authorities may accept that a continued increase in the rate of meat consumption, with its adverse climate change impacts, will be extremely detrimental to the nation’s future.

Conclusion

Although this article has focused primarily on chicken products and pig meat, the problem is also relevant to the extent that soybean meal is used in other agricultural products, such as beef, dairy products, and farmed fish. All involve other serious environmental problems that are exacerbated by the inefficiencies and related scale of production involved.

By any measure of sound economic or environmental management, such inefficiencies should not be perpetuated, yet a collective blind spot seems to apply in respect of animal agriculture. It is time to face the reality of our dire predicament in relation to climate change, and accept the need for urgent, meaningful action.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

Footnote

Even in the absence of clear tipping points, climate feedback mechanisms create accelerating, non-linear changes, which are potentially irreversible.

Sources

[1] Lenton, T.M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J.W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S., Schellnhuber, H.J., “Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system“, PNAS 2008 105 (6) 1786-1793; published ahead of print February 7, 2008, doi:10.1073/pnas.0705414105, http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.full

[2] Mahony, P. “On the edge of a climate change precipice“, Terrastendo, 3rd March, 2015, https://terrastendo.net/2015/03/03/on-the-edge-of-a-climate-change-precipice/

[3] Tilman, D., Clark, M., “Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health”, Nature515, 518–522 (27 November 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13959, Extended Data Table 7 “Protein conversion ratios of livestock production systems”, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html#t7

[4] Lenton, T.M. et al., op cit.

[5] Pütz, S., Groeneveld, J., Henle, K., Knogge, C., Martensen, A.C., Metz, M., Metzger, J.P., Ribeiro, M.C., de Paula, M. D., M. & Andreas Huth, A., “Long-term carbon loss in fragmented Neotropical forests”, Nature Communications 5:5037 doi: 10.1038/ncomms6037 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6037, cited in Hance, J., “Forest fragmentation’s carbon bomb: 736 million tonnes C02 annually”, Mongabay, 9th October, 2014, http://news.mongabay.com/2014/10/forest-fragmentations-carbon-bomb-736-million-tonnes-c02-annually/

[6] Haddad, N.M., Brudvig, L.A., Clobert, J., Davies, K.F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R.D., Lovejoy, T.E., Sexton, J.O., Austin, M.P., Collins, C.D., Cook, W.M., Damschen, E.I., Ewers, R.M., Foster, B.L., Jenkins, C.N., King, A.J., Laurance, W.F., Levey, D.J., Margules, C.R., Melbourne, B.A., Nicholls, A.O., Orrock, J.L., Song, D-X., and Townshend, J.R., “Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems”, Science Advances, 20 Mar 2015: Vol. 1, no. 2, e1500052 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1500052, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/2/e1500052.full, cited in Bell., L., “World’s fragmented forests are deteriorating”, Mongabay, 24th March, 2015, http://news.mongabay.com/2015/03/worlds-fragmented-forests-are-deteriorating/

[7] Sharma, S., “The need for feed: China’s demand for industrialised meat and its impacts”, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, February, 2014, p.13, http://www.iatp.org/documents/the-need-for-feed-china%E2%80%99s-demand-for-industrialized-meat-and-its-impacts

[8] Sharma, S., ibid., p. 14

[9] FAOSTAT, Livestock Primary and Crops Processed, http://faostat3.fao.org

[10] World Wildlife Fund, “Soy report card: Assessing the use of responsible soy for animal feed in Europe”, May, 2014, http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1568593/sojarapporten-2014.pdf

[11] McFarlane, I. and O’Connor, E.A., “World soybean trade: growth and sustainability”, Modern Economy, 2014, 5, 580-588, Published Online May 2014 in SciRes, Table 1, p. 582, http://www.scirp.org/journal/me, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/me.2014.55054

[12] Brown, L.R., “Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity, Chapter 9, China and the Soybean Challenge”, Earth Policy Institute, 6 November, 2013, http://www.earthpolicy.org/books/fpep/fpepch9

[13] Spanne, A., “Global meat demand plows up Brazil’s ‘underground forest'”, The Daily Climate, 10th November, 2014, http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2014/11/brazil-meat-cerrado-deforestation

[14] United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service Approved by the World Agricultural Outlook Board/USDA Circular Series, “Oilseeds: World Markets and Trade”, May 2014, http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/oilseeds.pdf

[15] Sharma, op cit., p. 17

[16] Sharma, op cit., p. 18

[17] Levitt, T., “Who will feed China’s pigs? And why it matters to us”, China Dialogue, 18th August, 2014, https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/7226-Who-will-feed-China-s-pigs-And-why-it-matters-to-us

[18] Gibbs, H.K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D.C., Noojipady, P., Soares-Filho, B., Bareto, P., Micol, L., Walker, N.F., “Brazil’s Soy Moratorium”, Science, 23rd January, 2015, Vol. 347 no. 6220 pp. 377-378 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0181, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6220/377

[19] Schiffman, R., “What Lies Behind the Recent Surge of Amazon Deforestation”, Yale Environment 360, 9th March, 2015, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/what_lies_behind_the_recent_surge_of_amazon_deforestation/2854/

[20] Schiffman, R., “Brazil’s Deforestation Rates Are on the Rise Again”, Newsweek, 22nd March, 2015, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/brazils-deforestation-rates-are-rise-again-315648.html

[21] Timms, P., “‘Godzilla El Nino’ intensifying: Drought, heatwaves and heightened bushfire risk expected this summer”, ABC News, 5th October, 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-05/extreme-el-nino-system-intensifying3a-drought-and-heightened-f/6828772

[22] Kim, D.-H., J. O. Sexton, and J. R. Townshend (2015), “Accelerated deforestation in the humid tropics from the 1990s to the 2000s”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 3495–3501. doi: 10.1002/2014GL062777, cited in American Geophysical Union, “Felling of tropical trees has soared, satellite shows, not slowed as UN study found”, 25th February, 2015, http://news.agu.org/press-release/felling-of-tropical-trees-has-soared-satellite-shows-not-slowed-as-un-study-found/

[23] Weisse, M. and Petersen, R. “Brazil and Indonesia struggling to reduce deforestation”, Global Forest Watch, 3rd September, 2015, http://blog.globalforestwatch.org/2015/09/brazil-and-indonesia-struggling-to-reduce-deforestation/#more-2641 and World Resources Institute, 3rd September, 2015, http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/09/brazil-and-indonesia-struggling-reduce-deforestation

[24] Spragg, J., “Feed Grain Supply & Demand Report 2013-14: A report for the Feed Grain Partnership”, July 2014, https://www.aecl.org/assets/www.aecl.org/outputs/140730-FGP-Supply-and-Demand-Report-July-2014.pdf

[25] Spratt, D.,“Global Warming – No more business as usual: This is an emergency!”, Environmental Activists’ Conference 2008: Climate Emergency – No More Business as Usual, reproduced in Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, 10 October, 2008, http://links.org.au/node/683

Images

Main image: Aerial view of Amazon deforestation in Brazil © Phototreat | iStock.

Figure 5: Brown, L.R., op cit.

Tags climate, climate change, environment, livestock, Pigs

Categories Climate Change, Environment

Volkswagen, animal agriculture and the climate crisis

September 24, 2015 //

With recent revelations of Volkswagen fudging greenhouse gas emissions results, it seems a good time to highlight the fact that food producers are not generally required to inform authorities or consumers of the emissions embedded in their products.

If they were required to do so, the overall results of those involved in animal agriculture would compare very poorly to the results of the automotive manufacturers. That’s even if they were to base them on the most favourable factors possible. I suspect they’d be permitted to do so, as authorities and environmental groups seem reluctant to consider their emissions in a manner befitting our position on the edge of a climate change precipice.

Volkswagen faces penalties from the US Environmental Protection Agency of up to US$18 billion, while the emissions of animal-based food producers escape scrutiny.

We ignore the issue at our peril.

If you’d like to see more on this issue, you can find my articles, papers and presentations on this website’s “Climate Change and the Impact of Animal Agriculture” page.

Methane breakthrough not what it may seem

September 20, 2015 //

Media outlets have recently reported that a new dietary additive for livestock could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy production. [1] The reports were based on a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [2]

The chemical methane inhibitor, known as 3-nitrooxypropanol (3NOP), has been found to reduce methane emissions from the process of enteric fermentation within a cow’s digestive system by up to 30 percent.

Despite the beneficial finding, the potential reduction still leaves overall emissions from beef production on a different paradigm to those of alternative products.

There are two key reasons.

Firstly, methane emissions from enteric fermentation only represent a portion of the emissions from beef production, leaving many other sources that are unaffected by the change.
Secondly, apart from dairy cows, it may generally only be possible to apply the additive during a relatively short portion of many cows’ lives, and possibly not at all for those raised entirely on grass. For example, in Australia, the authors of a recent peer-reviewed paper wrote that “feed manipulation mitigation has low potential, because beef feedlots produce just 3.5% of enteric fermentation emissions”. [3]

The findings are only materially relevant to ruminant animals, and would appear to have little or no impact on emissions from products such as chicken or pig meat. (The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has reported zero enteric fermentation emissions from chickens, and 3.1% from pigs). [4]

Figure 1 shows the estimated impact of the new additive on beef’s emissions intensity, assuming it were to become readily available with similar results to those found in the research study. (Emissions intensity represents the kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalent, or CO2-e, greenhouse gases per kilogram of product.) The findings indicate that the 30 percent reduction in methane emissions achieved while consuming the inhibitor equates to a reduction of around 8.8 percent in overall emissions intensity for beef (94 kg compared to 83 kg).

Figure 1: Emissions intensity with and without 3NOP enteric methane inhibitor with GWP20 (kg CO2-e/kg product)

The results in Figure 1 are based on global average figures for:

the specialised beef herd;
the dairy herd; and
combined dairy and specialised beef

The figures vary by region, and are influenced by factors such as feed digestibility, livestock management practices, reproduction performance and land use.

The emissions intensity of beef from the dairy herd is lower than that of specialised beef. The main reason is that a large portion of the dairy herd’s emissions are attributed to dairy products, such as milk and cheese. The emissions from a dairy cow may be similar to those from a cow raised solely for beef, but the emissions per kilogram of product from a dairy cow are spread across a broader range of products than those from a cow in the specialised beef herd.

The emissions intensity of cow’s milk would reduce 18.5 percent, from 5.7 kilograms to 4.7 kilograms CO2-e per kilogram of product.

The figures are based on a twenty-year time horizon for determining the “global warming potential” (GWP) of the various greenhouse gases. Such a time frame, which more accurately reflects the shorter-term impacts of methane emissions, is critical when considering climate change tipping points, with potentially catastrophic and irreversible impacts.

For the purpose of the calculations, it is assumed it would be possible, using the 3NOP inhibitor, to influence the following percentages of the enteric fermentation emissions that would otherwise have applied:

Specialised beef (mixed feeding systems): 50 percent
Specialised beef (grazing systems): Nil
Dairy beef (mixed feeding systems): 100 percent
Dairy beef (grazing systems): Nil

The extent of the inhibitor’s influence was determined to be the product of the 30 percent figure reported by the researchers, and the relevant percentages shown above, weighted by production levels.

Although cows in mixed feeding systems within the specialised beef herd generally only spend the final 10 to 25 percent of their lives in feedlots, they reach their maximum size (and greenhouse gas-emitting capacity) during that period.

The figure of 50 percent has been arrived at after considering typical weights and feeding periods from North American production systems, where the use of feedlots is more prominent than in a country such as Australia. [5] [6] Even then, the figure of 50 percent is at the high end of the likely range, thereby potentially overstating the benefit of the inhibitor. That is a conservative approach in the context of this article’s message, which is that the inhibitor’s benefits are not as significant as may have been assumed from initial media reports. On the other hand, the inhibitor was found to increase body weight gain, which would contribute to a reduction in emissions intensity.

As indicated, a figure of 100 percent has been assumed for cows in mixed feeding systems within the dairy herd, where production infrastructure may provide greater opportunities than in the specialised beef herd to apply the inhibitor. That assumes that the animals can receive mainly non-grain feed such as hay and alfalfa for extended periods, as they have not evolved to eat grains, and would only survive on them for a limited time. The researchers have reported that the inhibitor needs to be delivered continuously into the cow’s rumen in order to be effective, meaning it would need to be mixed with the daily allotment of feed. The researchers stated: “If delivered as a pulse-dose, the inhibitory effect will likely be transient.”

The figures have been adapted from emissions intensity and production figures published by the FAO in 2013. [7] The emissions intensity figures are based on the global average percentage apportionment of the various contributing factors, and are intended to be approximations only.

Figure 2 indicates how different types of beef, with the benefit of the 3NOP inhibitor, compare to some plant-based alternatives. The emissions intensity figures for the latter are from a 2014 Oxford University study. [8] Of note is the fact that soy beans contain nearly 50 percent more protein than beef per kilogram. [9]

Figure 2: Emissions intensity of beef with 3NOP enteric methane inhibitor relative to plant-based options with GWP20 (kg CO2-e/kg product)

Figures 3 and 4 show the kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions from 1 kilogram of beef, with and without the 3NOP enteric methane inhibitor. Firstly, without the inhibitor:

Figure 3: kg of CO2-e emissions per kg of beef without 3NOP enteric methane inhibitor (global ave. incl. dairy herd beef based on 20-year GWP)

Secondly, with the inhibitor:

Figure 4: kg of CO2-e emissions per kg of beef with 3NOP enteric methane inhibitor (global ave. incl. dairy herd beef based on 20-year GWP)

Conclusion

Attempts at reducing methane emissions from livestock receive significant attention, but little is said by mainstream media or environmental groups about the far more effective option of reducing meat consumption. If we are serious about addressing climate change, then that is an essential measure.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

References

[1] Gray, D., “Diet change cuts methane emissions in cow burps”, The Age, 4th August, 2015, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/diet-change-cuts-methane-emissions-in-cow-burps-20150804-girf6l.html

[2] Hristov, A.N., Oh, J., Giallongo, F., Frederick, T.W., Harper, M.T., Weeks, H.L., Branco, A.F., Moate, P.J., Deighton, M.H., Williams, S.R.O., Kindermann, M., Duval, S., “An inhibitor persistently decreased enteric methane emission from dairy cows with no negative effect on milk production“, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS 2015 ; published ahead of print July 30, 2015, doi:10.1073/pnas.1504124112, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/29/1504124112.full.pdf

[3] Wedderburn-Bisshop, G., Longmire, A., Rickards, L., “Neglected Transformational Responses: Implications of Excluding Short Lived Emissions and Near Term Projections in Greenhouse Gas Accounting”, International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses, Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2015, pp.11-27. Article: Print (Spiral Bound). Published Online: August 17, 2015, http://ijc.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.185/prod.269

[4] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Nov 2013, Figure 18, p. 35 and Figure 20, p. 37, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

[5] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, “Typical Beef Feedlot and Background Diets – Factsheet”, March, 2006, http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/beef/facts/06-017.htm

[6] Goodman, R., Agriculture Proud, “Ask A Farmer: What do feedlot cattle eat?”, 9th October, 2012, http://agricultureproud.com/2012/10/09/ask-a-farmer-what-do-feedlot-cattle-eat/

[7] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, op cit., Figure 7 and Table 5, p. 24

[8] Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., & Key, T.J., “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”, Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1

[9] USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference at http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ via Nutrition Data at http://www.nutritiondata.com

Image:

Tags climate, climate change, environment, Factory farming, livestock, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

Emissions intensity of Australian beef

June 30, 2015 //

A paper by Wiedemann, et al., funded and promoted by Meat and Livestock Australia, was recently published in the journal Agricultural Systems. [1] [2] It reported on the performance of Australia’s beef industry in relation to greenhouse gas emissions and its efficiency in terms of water use, fossil fuel energy demand and land occupation. This post focuses on greenhouse gas emissions.

The paper reported that the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of Australian beef production had reduced 14 percent between 1981 and 2010. The reported reduction was from 15.3 kg to 13.1 kg of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases per kilogram of live weight (kg CO2-e/kg live weight). Emissions intensity is a measure of the kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) greenhouse gases per kilogram of end “product” (in this case the live animal).

Both of the reported figures are low relative to other studies. Although low figures and improvements over time are pleasing, the results may not be as positive as they seem.

Background

The Wiedemann paper was based on a life cycle assessment of Australian beef production, covering processes and inputs from “cradle to farm gate”, immediately prior to “processing”. It excluded beef from dairy cattle and the live export trade.

It is assumed dairy cattle were excluded due to the fact that their emissions are attributed to dairy products in addition to beef, which is a key reason for beef-related emissions from dairy cattle being far lower than those from the specialised beef herd.

The authors were not in a position to collect data on the final stages of live export animals.

Factors considered in the report

Emissions factors considered in the study included methane from enteric fermentation in the digestive system of ruminant animals; nitrous oxide and methane from manure management; carbon dioxide from fossil fuels; land clearing (deforestation) to promote pasture growth; and soil carbon losses from various sources.

Comparison with other emissions intensity assessments

Many assessments of greenhouse gas emissions intensity of food products have been conducted. In terms of Australian beef, perhaps the most recent reports suitable for comparison were published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in November, 2013.

The FAO reports were based on findings from life cycle assessments using its Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM). The model takes into account emissions along the supply chain to the retail point. It reported that “post-farm” emissions represented only 0.5 percent of beef’s global average emissions intensity. As those emissions were relatively minor, the FAO studies would seem to be a reasonable comparison with Wiedemann’s.

Although not specifically reporting on Australian beef, the FAO did report on Oceania, of which Australia and New Zealand are the major beef-producing nations. In 2010, Australia produced around 2.3 million tonnes of beef, with New Zealand’s output equivalent to just over a quarter of that figure. Excluding beef from the dairy herd (consistent with the Wiedemann study), New Zealand’s relative output may be significantly lower than indicated by those figures.

The FAO’s estimate of emissions intensity of specialised beef in Oceania was approximately 36 kg CO2-e/kg product (carcass weight), based on a 100-year GWP (refer below). [3] That was an overall figure based on animals from grazing and mixed feeding systems. The emissions intensity of beef from animals raised solely on grass would be far higher than that of animals raised on both grass and grain. (Although land clearing rates and related timing differences may account for some of the difference between the FAO’s Oceania figure and the Wiedemann study’s results, those land clearing rates are again increasing, as referred to below.)

The FAO’s global average figure for specialised beef was 67.6 kg, noting that feed digestibility, weight and age at slaughter, and the extent of land clearing are contributing factors. Its figure for beef from grass-fed animals was 102.2 kg, and from animals raised on a combination of grass and grain, 56.2 kg. [4] Those figures are based on a 100-year GWP and would be higher if a 20-year GWP had been utilised (as referred to below).

A 2003 “end use” report commissioned by the Australian Greenhouse Office (using a 100-year GWP) estimated an overall figure for Australian beef of 51.7 kg CO2-e/kg product for the 1999 reference period and up to 79.9 kg for earlier periods. [5]

Here’s a snapshot of the comparisons:

Figure 1: Comparative Emissions Intensities of Beef (showing relevant reference period)

Alternative methodologies would appear to account for some of the differences between Wiedemann’s findings and those from other reports, as Wiedemann and co-authors indicated a relatively low figure for each of their reference periods, being 1981 and 2010.

The approach to measuring emissions from enteric fermentation would almost certainly account for some of the difference. Enteric fermentation is the process that occurs in the digestive systems of ruminant animals, producing methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas. For the northern cattle heard consuming tropical feed, the authors based their emissions intensity figure on a 2011 study by Kennedy and Charmley, who estimated methane emissions 30 percent lower than those used in the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI). [6] That approach is likely to be adopted for the 2015 NGGI, reporting on 2013 emissions. [7]

However, alternative approaches to calculating methane’s impact are unlikely to account for the significant differences between the Wiedemann report and other analyses, as it represents thirty percent of one part (the northern cattle herd) of one factor (methane from enteric fermentation) amongst several.

Some concerns with the Wiedemann paper

Out of date “global warming potential” (GWP)

The emissions of different greenhouse gases can be aggregated by converting them to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e). It is analogous to converting several different currencies to a common denomination. The greenhouse gases are converted by multiplying the mass of emissions by the appropriate “global warming potentials” (GWPs), which represent their warming effect relative to CO2. (For more details, please see my page GWP Explained.)

The GWP used by the paper’s authors for methane was already out of date when the paper was originally submitted to the journal for consideration in July 2014, and even further out of date when a revised version was submitted in November that year. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) used a GWP multiplier of 25 in 2007 until it increased it to 34 (with climate-carbon feedbacks) and 28 (without those feedbacks) in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report. [8] If updated methane and nitrous oxide figures (including climate-carbon feedbacks) had been used, beef’s emissions intensity would have been around 20 percent higher than reported, at 15.7 kg CO2-e/kg live weight.

Please also see comments below regarding a 20-year GWP.

Live weight versus carcass weight

The study is unusual to the extent that it bases its emissions intensity figures on live weight of the animal, rather than carcass weight or weight of the end product.

If we use the same adjustment factor for converting from live weight to carcass weight as was used in a report cited in the Wiedemann paper, then the emissions intensity would increase to 19.0 CO2-e/kg carcass weight. [9]

20-year GWP should also be considered

A time horizon of 100 years is commonly used in applying GWPs, and that was the case with this paper. That time horizon may not be appropriate when considering livestock’s climate change impacts, as methane breaks down to a significant extent within twelve years of being released.

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledged that the 100-year figure is not always appropriate by stating:

“There is no scientific argument for selecting 100 years compared with other choices. The choice of time horizon is a value judgement because it depends on the relative weight assigned to effects at different times.” [10]

On the basis of carcass weight and a 20-year GWP for methane and nitrous oxide, the emissions intensity in this case would have been 36.9 kg CO2-e/kg live weight, without allowing for additional factors referred to below.

Figure 2: Alternative measures of beef’s emissions based on Wiedemann paper along with certain plant-based options

As another comparison, the FAO’s figures (referred to above) would increase as indicated below.

Figure 3: FAO Emissions Intensity figures GWP100 vs GWP20

The “20-year GWP” figures in Figures 2 and 3 are based on the global average percentage split of the various factors contributing to beef’s emissions intensity, and are intended to be approximations only. As methane’s percentage contribution would be lower in mixed systems than in grazing systems, the figure of 114.9 kg in Figure 3 may be overstated, while the figure of 208.9 kg may be understated.

Allowing for the FAO’s estimate for Oceania (which is dominated by the Australian beef industry) gives us the following comparison with figures based on the Wiedemann study and some plant-based alternatives, as shown above.

Figure 4: Alternative measures of beef’s emissions based on Wiedemann paper and FAO along with certain plant-based options

Livestock-related land clearing is increasing

In promoting the Wiedemann paper, MLA reported that a reduction in emissions from land use “reflects the ban on broad scale clearing in Queensland”. [2] Unfortunately, due to exemptions and possible illegal clearing, livestock-related land clearing did not cease after the so-called ban (introduced by the previous Labor government) commenced in December, 2006.

In any event, the relevant legislation was overturned by the Liberal National government in 2013 in respect of land deemed to be of “high agricultural value”. [11] Even with the ban in place, extensive clearing for pasture occurred, including an estimated 134,000 hectares in 2011/12. [12]

The government changed to Labor again in early 2015, but it seems unwilling to revert to its earlier “ban”. The Minister for Natural Resources and Mines has said [13]:

“It is business as usual for landholders under Queensland’s vegetation management regulatory framework. I want to assure landholders and industry that current vegetation management practices remain in operation and there will be no rushed changes to the Vegetation Management Act 1999.”

A forthcoming report from the Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS) is expected to indicate a figure of 275,000 hectares for 2013/14, which represents more than a tripling since 2009/10, when around 77,000 hectares were cleared. [14] [15]

Figure 5: Queensland land clearing 1995 – 2014

A report by the World Wildlife Fund has identified eastern Australia as one of eleven global “deforestation fronts” for the twenty years to 2030. It has stated: [16]

“A weakening of laws to control deforestation in Queensland and New South Wales could bring a resurgence of large-scale forest clearing, mainly for livestock farming.”

The Wiedemann paper allowed for average annual beef-related clearing of around 158,000 hectares in Queensland for the five years to 2010. That appears to be a reasonable estimate for that period, but may be understated in terms of future clearing.

The paper’s supplementary material (Table A12) indicated that over 8 million hectares (80,000 square kilometres) were cleared for beef production in Queensland from 1981 to 2010. (The figures shown in the table are the annual average per five-year period.)

The forests will always be at risk of further clearing, depending largely on the inclination of the government of the day. The recently signed free trade agreement with China may be a key factor in further acceleration of livestock-related land clearing.

Savanna burning omitted

The Wiedemann study ignores savanna burning in relation to livestock production, supporting the view expressed in the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory that the burning would occur naturally if not instigated by graziers. (The 2010 National Greenhouse Inventory attributed 10.8 percent of agriculture’s emissions to savanna burning.)

However, that position is not supported by climate change campaign group Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (University of Melbourne), who have stated [17]:

“This position was based on largely anecdotal evidence that Aboriginal ‘firestick farming’ was extensively practiced prior to colonisation. Instead substantial expert opinion supports the conclusion that these emissions, categorised under Prescribed burning of Savannas, are anthropogenic. There is also evidence that savanna fires are far more widespread and frequent than would naturally occur.”

The Pew Charitable Trusts have also commented extensively on the destructive environmental impacts of livestock grazing, including manipulation of fire regimes (along with tree clearing, introduction of invasive pasture grasses, and degradation of land and natural water sources). [18]

Foregone sequestration omitted

The report’s authors did not consider foregone sequestration, despite the fact that livestock production has been responsible for around 70 percent of clearing in Australia. [19]. That is, they did not allow for the fact that current atmospheric carbon concentrations are far higher than they would have been if forest and other wooded vegetation had been retained, removing carbon from the atmosphere.

That approach is consistent with official emissions estimates, but they all contribute to society failing to clearly identify significant causes of climate change and relevant mitigation opportunities.

What many of us assume to be natural landscapes may be very different to what existed before livestock and other pressures were introduced. The problem is highlighted in the following words from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation [20]:

“It was once possible to walk from Melbourne to Sydney through almost continuous woodland cover, but now much of it is gone and the remaining patches are small and highly disturbed.”

Short-lived global warming agents omitted

Two warming agents generally omitted from official figures, and also from the Wiedemann paper, are tropospheric ozone and black carbon. They remain in the atmosphere for a short period, but have a significant impact.

Tropospheric ozone is formed through a series of chemical reactions involving nitrogen oxide, methane, carbon monoxide and other non-methane volatile organic compounds. It is the third most prevalent greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane (not allowing for water vapour). Major sources of carbon monoxide are agricultural waste burning, savanna burning and deforestation.

In its fifth assessment report, the IPCC stated, “there is robust evidence that tropospheric ozone also has a detrimental impact on vegetation physiology, and therefore on its CO2 uptake”. [21]

Black carbon is a microscopic particulate that is formed through the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels and biomass. The greatest single sources are savanna and forest fires, with livestock production playing a key role.

Black carbon contributes to global warming in two ways. Firstly, the particulates create heat by absorbing the sun’s radiation while airborne. Secondly, they can blow thousands of kilometres to land on glaciers and polar ice caps, where they cause solar radiation to be absorbed, rather than reflected, thereby speeding melting.

The Wiedemann paper’s approach on savanna burning, as referred to above, may be a factor in omitting the impact of tropospheric ozone and black carbon.

Soil carbon losses may be understated

The Wiedemann study considered loss of soil carbon arising from “cultivation for feed grain or fodder production, associated with land management and the conversion of pasture to crop land”.

Other relevant soil carbon emissions are not allowed for in official figures, and do not appear to have been considered in the Wiedemann paper.

Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute have highlighted the significant loss of soil carbon due to wind and water erosion that is “greatly accelerated by the removal and disturbance of vegetation”. They have reported that 80 percent of Australia’s soil organic carbon loss comes from rangeland grazing areas, highlighting the impact of rangeland deforestation and degradation. [22]

Conclusion

Despite the Wiedemann paper indicating relatively favourable results for Australian beef production’s greenhouse gas emissions, the material presented here indicates that beef’s performance is extremely poor (with emissions intensity figures more than ten times those of plant-based alternatives) after allowing for various additional factors. We must take those factors into account if we are to address the threat of climate change (including the essential mitigation measures) with the focus and urgency required.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

Note

The Wiedemann paper appears to contain two errors, which seem immaterial but may still be worth mentioning. Firstly, a reference of “DCCEE, 2010″ (the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2008) was used on page 112, when it should have been “DCCEE 2012″ (the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2010). Secondly, emissions from the beef herd were reported in gigagrams on page 113, when they should almost certainly have been megatonnes. (1 megatonne equals 1,000 gigagrams.)

Update 4th July, 2015

Comments on short-lived global warming agents and soil carbon losses added.

References

[1] Wiedemann, S.G, Henry, B.K., McGahan, E.J., Grant, T., Murphy, C.M., Niethe, G., “Resource use and greenhouse gas intensity of Australian beef production: 1981–2010″, Agricultural Systems, Volume 133, February 2015, Pages 109–118, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X14001565 and http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0308521X14001565/1-s2.0-S0308521X14001565-main.pdf?_tid=e4c5d55e-fc16-11e4-97e1-00000aacb362&acdnat=1431813778_b7516f07332614cd8592935ec43d16fd

[2] Meat & Livestock Australia, “Australian beef industry reduces environmental footprint over 30 years”, 26th March 2015, http://www.mla.com.au/About-MLA/News-and-media/Media-releases/Australian-beef-industry-reduces-environmental-footprint-over-30-years and Target 100, “Australian beef and environmental impact: 30 years of progress and innovation” (© 2012 – 2014 Meat & Livestock Australia Limited), undated (accessed 29th June, 2015), http://www.target100.com.au/Hungry-for-Info/Target-100-Responds/Australian-beef-and-environmental-impact-30-years-of-progress-and-innovation

[3] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains: A global life cycle assessment”, Figure 12, p. 30, Nov 2013, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3461e/i3461e.pdf

[4] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Nov 2013, Table 5, p. 24, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

[5] George Wilkenfeld & Associates Pty Ltd and Energy Strategies, “National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990, 1995, 1999, End Use Allocation of Emissions Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 2003, Volume 1″, Table S5, p. vii.

[6] Kennedy P. M., Charmley E. (2012) “Methane yields from Brahman cattle fed tropical grasses and legumes”, Animal Production Science 52, 225–239, http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN11103

[7] Australian National Greenhouse Accounts, National Inventory Report 2012, Volume 1, p. 275

[8] Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” , Table 8.7, p. 714 [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

[9] Capper, J., 2011. The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. J. Anim. Sci. 89 (12), 4249–4261. Cited in Wiedemman, et al., op cit.

[10] Myhre, G, op cit., p. 711-712

[11] Roberts, G, “Campbell Newman’s LNP bulldozing pre-election promise”, The Australian, 1 June, 2013, http://sunshinecoastbirds.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/campbell-newman-takes-axe-to-queensland.html

[12] Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts. 2014. Land cover change in Queensland 2011–12: a Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS) report. DSITIA, Brisbane, Table 4, p. 28, https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/vegetation/mapping/slats-reports/

[13] Queensland Government, Minister for State Development and Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Media Statement, “Vegetation management business as usual”, 5th March 2015, http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2015/3/5/vegetation-management-business-as-usual

[14] Maron, M., Laurance, W., Pressey, R., Catterall, C.P., Watson, J., Rhodes, J., “Land clearing in Queensland triples after policy ping pong”, The Conversation, 18th March, 2015 https://theconversation.com/land-clearing-in-queensland-triples-after-policy-ping-pong-38279

[15] Phelps, M., “Drought drives mulga hunger”, Queensland Country Life, 23rd February, 2015, http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/healthcare/drought-drives-mulga-hunger/2724451.aspx?storypage=0, cited in Maron, et al., op cit.

[16] World Wildlife Fund, “WWF Living Forests Report”, Chapter 5 and Chapter 5 Executive Summary, http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/lfr_chapter_5_executive_summary_final.pdf; http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/living_forests_report_chapter_5_1.pdf

[17] Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute of The University of Melbourne, “Zero Carbon Australia – Land Use: Agriculture and Forestry – Discussion Paper”, October, 2014, p. 90, http://bze.org.au/landuse

[18] Woinarski, J., Traill, B., Booth, C., “The Modern Outback: Nature, people, and the future of remote Australia”, The Pew Charitable Trusts, October 2014, p. 167-171 http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2014/10/the-modern-outback

[19] Derived from Russell, G. “The global food system and climate change – Part 1”, 9 Oct 2008, http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/10/09/the-global-food-system-and-climate-change-part-i/, which utilised: Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, State of the Environment Report 2006, Indicator: LD-01 The proportion and area of native vegetation and changes over time, March 2009; and ABS, 4613.0 “Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends”, Jan 2010; and ABS 1301.0 Australian Year Book 2008, since updated for 2009-10, 16.13 Area of crops.

[20] Lindenmayer, D. and Burgman, M., “Practical Conservation Biology” (2005, CSIRO Publishing), p. 235, http://www.publish.csiro.au/onborrowedtime/docs/PCB_Ch09.pdf and http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/5034.htm

[21] Myhre, G, et al., op cit., p. 661

[22] Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute of The University of Melbourne, op cit., pp. 47-48

Images

Australian map | Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 | colorkiddo.com

Figure 5 is from Maron, M., et al., op cit. (Ref. 14)

Tags climate change, environment, livestock, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

Climate change in a meal

June 28, 2015 //

Have you ever wondered about the climate change impacts of a single meal?

Food production significantly affects climate change, so let’s consider how adding ingredients to an existing recipe can affect the relevant greenhouse gas emissions. The recipe in this instance (for four people) is Harissa Bean Tagine, from The Kind Cook. [1]

In its original form, based primarily on emissions intensity figures from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the recipe’s ingredients are estimated to produce 2.3 kg of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases.

The chart below shows the revised emissions after adding 250 grams (just over half a pound) of various ingredients and adjusting the FAO’s figures to allow for a 20-year time horizon in assessing the impact of methane and nitrous oxide. [2] [3] [Footnote]

Two global average figures are shown for beef; grass-fed and “mixed-fed”. Beef from grass-fed cows is far more emissions intensive than beef from mixed feeding systems, involving grain and grass. No cows are fed grain exclusively for their entire lives, as they have not evolved to consume it and would not survive. “Grain-fed” cows are usually “finished” on grain for up to 120 days prior to slaughter, and the chart refers to the meat as “mixed-fed”.

For Oceania, the FAO only provided an overall figure, combining grass-fed and mixed-fed systems. Australia and New Zealand are the major beef-producing nations within Oceania. In 2013, Australia produced around 2.5 million tonnes of beef, with New Zealand’s output equivalent to less than a quarter of that figure. [4] Excluding beef from the dairy herd, New Zealand’s relative output may be significantly lower than indicated by those figures.

The emissions intensity figures for beef are for specialised beef, excluding meat from dairy cows, whose emissions are also attributed to dairy products.

The figures for fish and tofu are from a 2014 study by Oxford University. As processing accounts for a relatively small portion of a product’s emissions, the figure for tofu is based on the results for soy. [5]

Figure 1: “Harissa Bean Tagine” – kg of greenhouse gas emissions with the addition of new ingredients

What about pork, chicken and fish?

There are two key reason for the relatively low emissions from pork, chicken and fish, although it should be noted that emissions relating to any type of food can vary widely, depending on the methods and conditions involved.

Firstly, the animals involved are not ruminants, and therefore do not produce methane to the same extent as, say, cows and sheep. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas.

Secondly, unlike cows and sheep, they do not graze on pasture as part of the production process. That means that a relatively small land area has been cleared for products derived from them. Deforestation, regular burning of savanna to promote new grass and prevent forest from regenerating, and grazing on natural pasture, emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, even the emissions figures for beef and lamb do not include foregone sequestration. That is, they do not allow for the fact that current atmospheric carbon concentrations are far higher than they would have been if forest and other wooded vegetation had been retained, removing carbon from the atmosphere.

What many of us assume to be natural landscapes may be very different to what existed before livestock (the major cause of clearing) and other pressures were introduced. The problem is highlighted in the following words from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation [6]:

“It was once possible to walk from Melbourne to Sydney through almost continuous woodland cover, but now much of it is gone and the remaining patches are small and highly disturbed.”

A major contributor to deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado regions of South America is conversion of forest and other wooded vegetation to soy bean plantations. Most of the world’s soy is fed to livestock, including nearly 500 million pigs in China, in an inherently and grossly inefficient system of producing nutrition for the world’s human population. [7] [8]

Those inefficiencies are a key factor in other critical environmental problems involved in producing food from animals, resulting in the over-use of resources (such as land, fertiliser, pesticides and fossil fuels), the creation of waste, and the destruction of oceanic ecosystems far in excess of what would occur if our nutrition was derived directly from plants.

Adequacy of Alternative Diets

The American Dietetic Association has said [9]:

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods.”

As the extent of fortification of foods with nutrients such as vitamin B12 and vitamin D varies by country, it is important to review the adequacy of your diet based on local conditions.

In respect of vitamin D, The Medical Journal of Australia has reported: [10]

“Most adults are unlikely to obtain more than 5%-10% of their vitamin D requirement from dietary sources. The main source of vitamin D for people residing in Australia and New Zealand is exposure to sunlight.”

The vitamin B12 found in certain animal-based food products is produced by soil microbes that live in symbiotic relationships with plant roots, and which find their way into the animals’ digestive tracts. Such bacteria are also found in humans’ digestive tracts, but too far along to be readily absorbed for nutritional purposes. [11]

Vitamin B12 is not synthesised by plants, nor is it generally found on vegetables in our modern sanitised lifestyle. However, B12 supplements are readily produced from bacteria, to be ingested directly or incorporated in various other food products. That is a far more natural approach than: (a) destroying rainforests and other natural environs; and (b) operating livestock production systems; purely for animal food products.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “natural” to mean: “Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind”. On the basis of that definition, no livestock production systems could be described as “natural”. Even so-called “free range” systems involve factors such as selective and intense breeding programs, premature death, and often mutilation, such as ear-notching and castration.

Conclusion

To encourage dietary practices that have the most beneficial impact on climate change, governments need to introduce policies that establish pricing signals incorporating the environmental costs of different products. With such policies, beef and certain other products would become luxury items, with reductions in demand, production and the resultant environmental impacts.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Facebook, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)

Footnote

If you would like more information about using a 20-year time horizon for assessing greenhouse gas emissions, please see my page GWP Explained.

Please Note

None of the information contained in this article is intended to represent nutritional, dietary, medical, health or similar advice.

Recipe for Harrisa Bean Tagine from The Kind Cook

Harissa is a hot paste from Tunisia (North Africa), made from chilli, herbs and spices. Traditionally cooked in a tagine, this dish can also be done by gently cooking on your stove top. Choose good quality chopped tomatoes and go easy on the harissa paste if you are not great with chilli.

This is such a simple, uncomplicated, warming, economical and nourishing dish. Loads of fresh herbs lift its earthy notes.

YOU NEED

Oil for cooking

1 large brown onion, peeled and finely diced

4 cloves of garlic, peeled and minced

2 x 400 gram cans chopped tomatoes

1 – 1.5 teaspoons of harissa paste

2 teaspoons of pure maple syrup

2 cans cannellini beans, rinsed well and drained

1 cup of fresh parsley, washed well and roughly chopped

1 bunch of fresh coriander, washed well, stems finely diced, leaves roughly chopped

1/2 teaspoon salt/cracked black pepper

#optional – 1 teaspoon of dried chilli

YOU DO

Heat a small amount of oil in a large pan. Alternatively just use a little water and sauté the onion until softened. Add the garlic and cook on a gentle heat for another minute or two.

Add the crushed chopped tomatoes, harissa paste and maple syrup. Stir to combine and simmer gently for 10 minutes.

Add the beans. Stir through the parsley and coriander. Bring everything to the boil.

Check the seasoning. Add some chilli flakes if you want more heat.

Serving suggestion: This is lovely served with cous cous, steamed maple carrots, loads of salad dressed in fresh lime juice and olive oil. Fresh bread to mop up all the juices is also a great accompaniment.

Yields: 4 small serves

Time: Takes about 30 minutes.

Notes: Harissa paste is available in well stocked delis.

I often also add a generous handful of good quality Kalamata olives to this dish, when I add the beans.

If you have left overs, this is delicious on toast the next day.

References

[1] The Kind Cook, http://thekindcook.com/; http://thekindcook.com/harissa-bean-tagine/ (Used with permission.) Also: https://www.facebook.com/thekindcook; http://twitter.com/TheKindCook; http://pinterest.com/thekindcook/; http://instagram.com/thekindcook/

[2] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Nov 2013, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

[3] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains: A global life cycle assessment”, Nov 2013, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3461e/i3461e.pdf

[4] FAOSTAT, Livestock Primary, 2013, http://faostat.fao.org/site/569/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=569#ancor, accessed 27 June, 2015 (Actual numbers: Australia 2,480,458 tonnes; New Zealand 572,628 tonnes)

[5] Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., & Key, T.J., “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK“, Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1

[6] Lindenmayer, D. and Burgman, M., “Practical Conservation Biology” (2005, CSIRO Publishing), p. 235, http://www.publish.csiro.au/onborrowedtime/docs/PCB_Ch09.pdf and http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/5034.htm

[7] FAOSTAT, Live Animals, 2012, http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=573#ancor, accessed 12 May, 2014. (Actual number: 471,875,000 of a global population of 966,170,968)

[8] Brown, L.R., “Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity, Chapter 9, China and the Soybean Challenge”, Earth Policy Institute, 6 November, 2013, http://www.earthpolicy.org/books/fpep/fpepch9

[9] Craig, W.J., Mangels, A.R., American Dietetic Association, “Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets.”, J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

[10] Nowson, C.A., McGrath, J.J., Ebeling, P.R., Haikerwal, A., Daly, R.M., Sanders, K.M., Seibel, M.J. and Mason, R.S., “Vitamin D and health in adults in Australia and New Zealand: a position statement”, Med J Aust 2012; 196 (11): 686-687, doi: 10.5694/mja11.10301, https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/11/vitamin-d-and-health-adults-australia-and-new-zealand-position-statement

[11] Trafton, A., “MIT biologists solve vitamin puzzle”, MIT News, 21 March, 2007, http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2007/b12 and McDougall, J., “Vitamin B12 Deficiency—the Meat-eaters’ Last Stand”, McDougall Newsletter, Vol. 6, No. 11, Nov, 2007, https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/nov/b12.htm

Tags climate, climate change, environment, livestock, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

Author

References

Image

Share this:

What is the problem?

Livestock’s impacts are understated

Some key contributors

The impact of chicken, pig and dairy consumption

Seafood’s impacts

Will we grasp a golden opportunity?

The failure of prominent environmental groups

Social Justice

Personal choice?

Conclusion

Author

Footnote

References

Image

Share this:

The livestock sector’s impact in the context of “Striking Targets”

Conclusion

Author

Footnotes

References

Image

Share this:

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Conclusion

Author

References

Images

Updates

Share this:

Animal Rights

Climate change in general

Environmental (incl. Climate Change) impacts of Animal Agriculture

Politics (incl. environmental issues)

Author

Main Image

Other Images

Notes

Share this:

A new perspective based on potential consequences

What is the problem with feed crops?

The Amazon tipping point

Growth in livestock and related feed crop production

The Amazon soy moratorium and other measures are failing

Consumption in all countries contributes to the Amazon problem

China may be willing to act

Conclusion

Author

Footnote

Sources

Images

Share this:

Author

Sources

Image

Share this:

Conclusion

Author

References

Image:

Share this:

Background

Factors considered in the report

Comparison with other emissions intensity assessments

Some concerns with the Wiedemann paper

Out of date “global warming potential” (GWP)

Live weight versus carcass weight

20-year GWP should also be considered

Livestock-related land clearing is increasing

Savanna burning omitted

Foregone sequestration omitted

Short-lived global warming agents omitted

Soil carbon losses may be understated

Conclusion

Author