Blogs
Australia : Is reducing the animal agriculture industry the most efficient action towards stopping climate change?
By Annabel Denbigh
Introduction
Climate change is one of the world’s biggest issues, as it presents a problem that would destroy the Earth if not dealt with quickly enough. In recent years, the extent of the effect of the animal agriculture industry has been noticed, and has been seen by some scientists to be a more effective way in combatting the Earth’s increasing temperature than other actions. With the increasing growth of human population1 and the demand for resources,2 the amount and type of food, particularly animal products, consumed by humans needs to be monitored. The methane produced by cattle and the following packaging and distributing, has a huge effect on climate change, along with water and land destruction, resulting in more species becoming extinct3 4. However controversy surrounds the extent to which the industry contributes as well as the events preceding such an action being consequential; therefore more important contributors to climate change like fossil fuels should be focused on.
Biological Significance
The biological significance of this question is to understand the relationship between the animal agriculture industry and how much it contributes to global warming. It is important to understand in what ways does methane, consumption of water, large amounts of land use, waste disposal and absence of fish in the sea disrupt the natural carbon cycle and increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Comparing which are the most effective ways in reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is important to work out the most efficient action, as well as looking at our future population and deciding what kind of ecosystem is needed to have to ensure human survival.
Points of View
For
The research regarding the affect of animal agriculture on climate change pointed to the large amount of emissions that the industry produced, however the extent to which it contributes is controversial. Steinfield et al (2006) and Walsh (2013) both state that ‘the livestock sector is… responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent.’ Contrastingly, World Watch (2009) and Cowspiracy (2014) both state the statistic is much higher at 51%. However, regardless of this, it can be stated that the idea of reducing the amount of farmed animals is of high importance. The point of concern lies in the cattle’s production of methane, as the combination of cows, pigs, sheep and goats put 92 million tones of methane into the atmosphere (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). Methane is more warming than Carbon Dioxide, and also does not stay in the atmosphere as long, suggesting that if methane emissions were reduced, the Earth’s temperature would decrease in a quicker time frame than if carbon amounts were reduced, thus showing an efficient action towards combatting climate change (World Watch, 2009; Steinfield et al 2006). However other productions surrounding the animal industry also contribute; for example the fluorocarbons needed for cooling livestock products and the production and distribution of such sanitary controlled products. Reducing the animal agriculture industry will reduce the emissions of each of these parts, including methane production, showing it is the most efficient action towards stopping climate change.
With little amounts of usable water and land left on the Earth due to the effects of overpopulation and high amounts of greenhouse gases, lessening the animal agriculture industry would have a positive effect in allowing more of these resources to be used by humans. The industry uses a third of the worlds fresh water, in a time where draught is common and fresh water is vital, and also deposits liquid waste into waterways and oceans, killing sea life (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2013; Cowspiracy, 2014). 70% of the world’s fish species are depleted, destroying entire oceans and food chains; reducing the fish farming industry would assist some of these ecosystems to recover (United Nations, 2013). Furthermore, nearly half of the Earth’s habitable land is used for animal farming, meaning millions of trees are cut down each year for livestock farming land, disrupting a part of the carbon cycle that consumes carbon, leaving more carbon and less oxygen in the atmosphere (Shindell et al, 2009). Although it is a must that humans farm land, farming plants uses much less land and reducing animal farming means cutting down on the farms also kept to feed those animals, presenting an efficient action.
Compared to other solutions, reducing the animal agriculture industry appears to be easier and more convenient. Shindell et al (2009) shows that with an increasing population, energy needs will increase by 20% by 2040 and agriculture needs by 80% by 2050. As animals make up a large portion of human agriculture, it is clear that lessening this industry is more important than lessening the amount of energy humans use. It is also more acceptable by society standards to consume less or stop eating meat and dairy than it is to stop using any sort of power or not to drive a car. Society cannot function without the use of power, but the population, with careful consideration, can survive with less animal products, instead replacing protein and iron with new genetically engineered foods like Shmeeat (World Wide Fund, 2011). A large percentage would agree to consume less animals, rather than giving up electricity, showing a more successful action plan, and therefore a more efficient one.
Against
In contrast, decreasing the size of the animal agriculture industry is not as efficient in terms of reducing greenhouse gases and grain usage, when looked at in more detail. Some reports find that the animal agriculture industry only contributes to 2.5% of global emissions, although the bias from sources is strong (Explore Beef, 2009). Methane, although more warming than Carbon Dioxide, has a half life of only eight years compared to a hundred years for CO2, thus concentrating on animal agriculture and methane production is not as effective, as its time spent in the atmosphere is not very long (World Wide Fund, 2011). Furthermore, the ratio of grain to meat protein is 75kg to 1kg in developed countries, but places in Sub Saharan Africa use up to 2000kg of grain to produce 1kg of protein, as their feed is of a worse quality (Walsh, 2013). This shows that not all animal agriculture practices are inefficient, and increasing the standard of feed in underdeveloped countries will mean a reduction in grain consumed by cattle.
Instead of focusing on the animal agriculture industry, stopping the amount of burning fossil fuels shows to be a more effective way of stopping greenhouse gases. According to the International Energy Agency (2008) the power sector is responsible for 37% of all man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions, much more than 18% produced for animal agriculture. It is also predicted that fossil fuels may run out in the next 40 years, meaning it is imperative that the focus should be turned to reducing the use of them, as comparatively, animals will never run out (Steinfield et al, 2006). Society is not prepared to totally depend on renewable energy, so the most efficient action towards stopping climate change would be to prepare, and conserve the fuels present, as without power, society will not survive and climate change will become irrelevant. As a result, reducing the animal agriculture industry is not the most efficient way compared to reducing the amount of fossil fuels burnt.
If indeed, the animal agriculture industry were to be reduced, the issues resulting would overpower the benefits of the action in the first place. Humans have developed to gain vitamins like iron, protein and B12 from animals, and if other food sources were to replace these animal products, there may be an increase in nutritional deficiencies around the globe. The extra food needed to replace meat and dairy would mean new farms would have to be created, as the animal farms may not be suitable, and more trees and animal habitats would therefore be destroyed. Although the farming of plants takes up less land, the need for more food to replace the caloric-dense animal products would override this benefit of farming plants. Conserve Energy Future (2010) predicts that if the world were to stop consuming animal products, the loss of jobs, killing of animals, need for plant food awareness, and the increase in genetically engineered food would be detrimental to society and have no huge benefit on the Earth’s atmosphere, showing that this action is not the most effective.
Conclusion
The research shows that reducing the animal agriculture industry is an effective and efficient way of stopping climate change, however should not be the sole focus. From the evidence, the extent to which the industry contributes to global warming is large, however not as large as other sectors like burning fossil fuels. The convenience as an action against climate change is a positive, however it should not be considered the most important action, rather one of many actions that need to be taken to ensure climate change does not ruin the Earth.
Bibliography
Critical Analysis of Livestock’s Long Shadow 2009, Explore Beef, accessed 22 November 2015, <http://www.explorebeef.org/CMDocs/ExploreBeef/Fact...
Overfishing: a threat to marine biodiversity 2007, United Nations, accessed 22 November 2015, <http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?s...
Overview of Greenhouse Gases 2013, United States Environmental Protection Agency, accessed 24 November 2015, <http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gas...
Shindell, D, Koch, D & Unger, N 2009, Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions, Science Time, accessed 20 November 2015, <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.fig...
Steinfield, H, Gerber, P & Wassanaar, T 2006, Livestock's Long Shadow, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, accessed 24 November 2015, <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.p...
The Facts 2014, Cowspiracy- AUM Films, accessed 24 November 2015, <http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/>.
Walsh, B 2013, The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production, Science Time, accessed 24 November 2015, <http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whop...
What are Fossil Fuels? 2012, Conserve Energy Future, accessed 22 November 2015, <9. http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/Disadvantages_FossilFuels.php>.
What causes climate change? 2011, World Wide Fund, accessed 24 November 2015, <http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/cause...
Where does greenhouse gas pollution come from? 2011, World Wide Fund, accessed 23 November 2015, <http://www.wwf.org.au/our_work/people_and_the_envi...
