Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Killer cow emissions : LA Times Editorial Powerfully Connects Meat to Global Warming

Expand Messages
  • CyberBrook
    Editor, Los Angeles Times _letters@latimes.com_ *L.A. Times Editorial Powerfully Connects Meat to Global Warming
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Editor, Los Angeles Times

      *L.A. Times Editorial Powerfully Connects Meat to Global Warming

      From the Los Angeles Times
      *Killer cow emissions

      *Livestock are a leading source of greenhouse gases. Why isn't anyone
      raising a stink?

      October 15, 2007

      It's a silent but deadly source of greenhouse gases that contributes
      more to global warming than the entire world transportation sector, yet
      politicians almost never discuss it, and environmental lobbyists and
      other green activist groups seem unaware of its existence.

      That may be because it's tough to take cow flatulence seriously. But
      livestock emissions are no joke.

      Most of the national debate about global warming centers on carbon
      dioxide, the world's most abundant greenhouse gas, and its major sources
      -- fossil fuels. Seldom mentioned is that cows and other ruminants, such
      as sheep and goats, are walking gas factories that take in fodder and
      put out methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases that are far
      more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane, with 21
      times the warming potential of CO2, comes from both ends of a cow, but
      mostly the front. Frat boys have nothing on bovines, as it's estimated
      that a single cow can belch out anywhere from 25 to 130 gallons of
      methane a day.

      It isn't just the gas they pass that makes livestock troublesome. A
      report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
      identified livestock as one of the two or three top contributors to the
      world's most serious environmental problems, including water pollution
      and species loss. In terms of climate change, livestock are a threat not
      only because of the gases coming from their stomachs and manure but
      because of deforestation, as land is cleared to make way for pastures,
      and the amount of energy needed to produce the crops that feed the animals.

      All told, livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse-gas emissions
      worldwide, according to the U.N. -- more than all the planes, trains and
      automobiles on the planet. And it's going to get a lot worse. As living
      standards rise in the developing world, so does its fondness for meat
      and dairy. Annual per-capita meat consumption in developing countries
      doubled from 31 pounds in 1980 to 62 pounds in 2002, according to the
      Food and Agriculture Organization, which expects global meat production
      to more than double by 2050. That means the environmental damage of
      ranching would have to be cut in half just to keep emissions at their
      current, dangerous level.

      It isn't enough to improve mileage standards or crack down on diesel
      truck emissions, as politicians at both the state and national levels
      are working to do. Eventually, the United States and other countries are
      going to have to clean up their agricultural practices, while consumers
      can do their part by cutting back on red meat.

      Manure, methane and McGovern

      In a Web forum for presidential candidates in September, TV talk-show
      host Bill Maher asked former Sen. John Edwards a snarky question:
      Because Edwards had suggested that people trade in their SUVs to benefit
      the environment, and cattle generate more greenhouse gases than SUVs,
      "You want to take a shot at meat?" Maher asked.

      Edwards wisely dodged the question. It is extremely hazardous for
      politicians to take on the U.S. beef industry, a lesson learned by Sen.
      George McGovern in the late 1970s when his Select Committee on Nutrition
      dared to recommend that Americans cut down on red meat and fatty dairy
      products for health reasons. After a ferocious lobbying blitz from meat
      and dairy interests, the committee rewrote its guidelines to suggest
      diners simply choose lean meats that "will reduce saturated fat intake."
      McGovern was voted out of office in 1980, in part because of opposition
      from cattlemen in his home state of South Dakota.

      Beyond the dangers of taking on the beef bloc, legislating food choices
      is an unpopular and nearly impossible task, so it's unlikely any
      candidate will endorse a national vegetarian movement to fight global
      warming any time soon. There are other approaches, though.

      Cows and other ruminants have four stomachs, the first of which, called
      the rumen, is where the trouble lies; bacteria in the rumen produce
      methane. Scientists -- mostly in Australia, New Zealand and Britain,
      where the problem is taken a lot more seriously than it is here -- are
      working on a variety of technical solutions, including a kind of bovine
      Alka-Seltzer. Scientists are also trying to develop new varieties of
      feed grasses that are more energy efficient and thus generate less
      methane, and they are experimenting with targeted breeding to produce a
      less-gassy strain of cattle.

      But it's not just about the belching. Livestock manure also emits
      methane (especially when it's stored in lagoons) and nitrous oxide,
      better known as laughing gas. There's nothing funny about this gas: It
      has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide, and livestock are
      its leading anthropogenic (human-caused) source. The best way to reduce
      these gases is to better manage the manure; storage methods and
      temperature can make a big difference. The California Air Resources
      Board is studying manure-management practices as part of a sweeping
      effort to identify ways of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, work that
      by the end of next year might lead to regulation of the state's ranches
      and dairies. Other states should do the same.

      There are also smart ways of treating or converting animal waste. Manure
      lagoons can be covered, capturing gases that can be used to generate
      power or simply be burned away (burning the gases converts most of the
      emissions to CO2, which is far less destructive than methane). That's
      the strategy being pursued by American Electric Power Co., a gigantic
      utility based in Columbus, Ohio, whose coal-fired power plants make it
      the nation's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. This summer, the company
      began putting tarps on waste lagoons at farms and ranches and sending
      the gases they capture to flares.

      American Electric is under heavy regulatory pressure. Last week, it was
      on the wrong end of the biggest environmental settlement in U.S. history
      and agreed to spend up to $4.6 billion to clean up its smokestacks. Its
      work on manure is part of an experiment in carbon offsets; the company
      anticipates that someday Congress will cap the amount of carbon dioxide
      that can be emitted and allow polluters to trade pollution credits. As a
      previous installment of this series noted, that's a less effective way
      to combat global warming than carbon taxes, but the American Electric
      example shows that it would also direct the economic might of industrial
      polluters toward solving off-the-beaten-path problems such as livestock

      Other possible solutions include providing more aid to ranchers in
      places like Brazil, where forests are rapidly disappearing, to make
      cattle operations more efficient and thus decrease the need to cut down
      trees. Changes in farming practices on fields used to grow livestock
      feed could help capture more carbon. And U.S. agricultural policy is
      overdue for changes. Subsidies on crops such as corn and soybeans have
      traditionally kept the price of meat artificially low because these are
      key feedstocks.

      Broccoli: It's what's for dinner

      Such policy shifts and new technologies would help, but probably not
      enough. A recent report in the Lancet led by Australian National
      University professor Anthony J. McMichael posits that available
      technologies applied universally could reduce non-carbon dioxide
      emissions from livestock by less than 20%. The authors advocate another,
      fringe approach that has long been embraced by dietitians and vegans but
      is a long way from going mainstream in the United States: eating less meat.

      Americans love beef. According to the 2000 census, the U.S. ranks No. 3
      in the world in per-capita consumption of beef and veal (after Argentina
      and Uruguay), gorging on 100 pounds per year. We're also among the
      leaders in obesity, heart disease and colorectal cancer, and there is a
      connection -- fatty red meat has been linked to all of these conditions.

      McMichael's idea isn't likely to gain much traction outside Australia;
      he proposes that developed countries lower their daily intake of meat
      from about 250 grams to 90 grams, with no more than 50 grams coming from
      ruminant animals -- that's less than 2 ounces, or half a McDonald's

      Still, as evidence mounts that cutting back on beef would both improve
      our health and help stave off global warming, a campaign urging people
      to do so is clearly in order. It's understandable why political
      candidates are wary of bashing beef, but less understandable why
      environmental leaders with nothing to lose are reluctant to raise the
      issue. They would be more credible in targeting polluters if they were
      equally assertive in pointing out what all Americans can do to fight
      global warming, and at the very top of that list -- way ahead of more
      commonly mentioned approaches such as buying fluorescent lightbulbs or
      energy-efficient appliances -- would be eating less red meat.

      A University of Chicago study examined the average American diet and
      found that all the various energy inputs and livestock emissions
      involved in its production pump an extra 1.5 tons of CO2 into the air
      over the course of a year, which would be avoided by a vegetarian diet.
      Thus, the researchers found, cutting out meat would do more to reduce
      greenhouse gas emissions than trading in a gas guzzler for a hybrid car.

      The U.S. Department of Agriculture assesses ranchers, dairymen and
      producers of other commodities to pay for marketing campaigns to promote
      their products, raising millions of dollars a year and turning such
      slogans as "Got Milk?" and "Beef: It's What's for Dinner" into national
      catchphrases. This isn't quite tantamount to a government-mandated
      campaign to promote cigarette smoking, but it's close. The government
      should not only get out of the business of promoting unhealthful and
      environmentally destructive foods, it should be actively discouraging them.

      For more information on this vital subject,
      please visit

      Meat Eating & Global Warming

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.