Climate change emissions from meat production are far higher than estimated, according to a controversial new study that will fuel the debate on whether people should eat fewer animal products to help the environment.
In a paper published by a respected United States think tank, the Worldwatch Institute, two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of' per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent.
They claim United Nations figures have severely underestimated the greenhouse gases caused by tens of billions of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and other animals in three main areas: methane, land use and respiration.
Their findings - which are likely to prompt fierce debate among academics - come amid increasing calls from climate change experts for people to eat less meat.
In the'-page report, Robert Goodland, a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, a current adviser, suggest domesticated animals cause 32 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2), more than the combined impact of industry and energy. The accepted figure is' per cent, taken from a landmark UN report in 2006, Livestock's Long Shadow.
"If this argument is right," write Goodland and Anhang, "it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change.
"In fact, this approach would have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."
Their call to move to meat substitutes accords with the views of the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who has described eating less meat as "the most attractive opportunity" for making immediate changes to climate change.
Lord Stern of Brentford, author of the 2006 review into the economic consequences of global warming, added his name to the call last week, telling a newspaper interviewer: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources."
Scientists are concerned about livestock's exhalation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Cows and other ruminants emit 37 per cent of the world's methane. A study by Nasa scientists published in Science on Friday found that methane has significantly more effect on climate change than previously thought: 33 times more than carbon dioxide, compared with a previous factor of 25.
According to Goodland and Anhang's paper, which has not been peer-reviewed, scientists have significantly underestimated emissions of methane expelled by livestock. They argue the gas's impact should be calculated over 20 years, in line with its rapid effect - and the latest recommendation from the UN - rather than the 100 years favoured by Livestock's Long Shadow. This, they say, would add a further 5 billion tonnes of CO2 to livestock emissions - 7.9 per cent of global emissions from all sources.
Similarly, they claim official figures are wrong to ignore CO2 emitted by breathing animals on the basis it is offset by carbon photosynthesised by their food, arguing the existence of this unnecessary animal-based CO2 amounts to 8.7 billion tonnes of CO2, 3.7 per cent of total emissions.
On land use, they calculate that returning the land being used for livestock to natural vegetation and forests would remove 2.6 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere, 4.2 per cent of greenhouse gas. They also complain that the UN underestimated the amount of livestock. - 30241
In a paper published by a respected United States think tank, the Worldwatch Institute, two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of' per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent.
They claim United Nations figures have severely underestimated the greenhouse gases caused by tens of billions of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and other animals in three main areas: methane, land use and respiration.
Their findings - which are likely to prompt fierce debate among academics - come amid increasing calls from climate change experts for people to eat less meat.
In the'-page report, Robert Goodland, a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, a current adviser, suggest domesticated animals cause 32 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2), more than the combined impact of industry and energy. The accepted figure is' per cent, taken from a landmark UN report in 2006, Livestock's Long Shadow.
"If this argument is right," write Goodland and Anhang, "it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change.
"In fact, this approach would have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."
Their call to move to meat substitutes accords with the views of the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who has described eating less meat as "the most attractive opportunity" for making immediate changes to climate change.
Lord Stern of Brentford, author of the 2006 review into the economic consequences of global warming, added his name to the call last week, telling a newspaper interviewer: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources."
Scientists are concerned about livestock's exhalation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Cows and other ruminants emit 37 per cent of the world's methane. A study by Nasa scientists published in Science on Friday found that methane has significantly more effect on climate change than previously thought: 33 times more than carbon dioxide, compared with a previous factor of 25.
According to Goodland and Anhang's paper, which has not been peer-reviewed, scientists have significantly underestimated emissions of methane expelled by livestock. They argue the gas's impact should be calculated over 20 years, in line with its rapid effect - and the latest recommendation from the UN - rather than the 100 years favoured by Livestock's Long Shadow. This, they say, would add a further 5 billion tonnes of CO2 to livestock emissions - 7.9 per cent of global emissions from all sources.
Similarly, they claim official figures are wrong to ignore CO2 emitted by breathing animals on the basis it is offset by carbon photosynthesised by their food, arguing the existence of this unnecessary animal-based CO2 amounts to 8.7 billion tonnes of CO2, 3.7 per cent of total emissions.
On land use, they calculate that returning the land being used for livestock to natural vegetation and forests would remove 2.6 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere, 4.2 per cent of greenhouse gas. They also complain that the UN underestimated the amount of livestock. - 30241
About the Author:
I am a professional editor from http://www.frbiz.com/, and my work is to promote a free online trade platform. http://www.frbiz.com/ contain a great deal of information about quail meat,cow meat,chicken luncheon meat, welcome to visit!
