The immense environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions produced by the livestock industry is far less well known than that of industry, transportation, construction and domestic energy use. According to calculations from the Centre for Agriculture and Environment in the Netherlands, a cow annually produces just as many greenhouse gas emissions as 4.5 cars, or driving 45,000 miles. The results of a research conducted by the Dutch Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation to explore the relationship between meat consumption and the emission of greenhouse gasses revealed a shocking and inconvenient truth…

The livestock sector is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, while all the cars, lorries, ships and planes added together do not account for more than 13% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Following An Inconvenient Truth many people pointed their fingers at cars and light bulbs as the main culprits for global warming. However, there is a far more important cause of global warming: meat consumption. Eating meat produces an annual net contribution of 635 pounds* to the emission of CO2 per person; that is 660 billion pounds for all people in the United States and Europe. A reduction in meat consumption can also produce great results in the fight against deforestation, water shortages, unequal food distribution and the wastage of plant-based proteins by first feeding them to animals.

Governments should stimulate a meat-free day through campaigns, just like the 5 PER DAY program to stimulate the consumption of fruit and vegetables, but this time to stimulate to NOT eat meat for at least one day a week. Meat consumption and the environmental pollution with which it is associated warrants serious attention from a government that professes to want to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses. When it becomes clear how much CO2 emissions would be reduced if everyone did not eat meat for just one day more often,then there is a fantastic opportunity to create an inspirational governmental campaign.

Let’s take a look at the carbon savings Americans could make**:

And let's not forget the health aspects of eating meat, the dangers of zoonotic diseases and the conditions under which animals are forced to live in the intensive livestock sector.

More gains

Gains can also be made in other areas. According to the World Watch Institute, the production of just one pound of red meat uses 170,000 gallons of water. That is just as much water as is needed to shower daily for two years. The use of land for the production of animal proteins is roughly 10 times as great as for the production of plant-based proteins. It takes 7 pounds of grain (corn and soybeans) to produce 1 pound of meat!

Given the high social costs that are associated with the production of meat, it is incredible that meat is still ignored when it comes to the issue of sustainable production and consumption. The pollution costs of meat production are still passed on to society. Think about the costs of the pollution of drinking water as a result of excessive fertiliser use and that of the ammonia pollution caused by intensive livestock farming. A tax on steak would, for example, have a greater impact on the environment than levying kilometre charges on car owners.

Climate policy should set the goal of reducing half of the greenhouse gas emissions that are caused by the livestock industry. Sadly, for now solutions are sought in treating the symptoms, rather than the root of the problem. Low-emissions stalls are being developed to capture the methane; the upshot being that more cattle will be permanently kept indoors. A pill as big as a man’s fist is also being developed to reduce the methane belches and farts of cattle. It would seem more obvious to simply reduce the number of animals to a level that actually does justice to the capacity of both the environment and climate. However, the reduction of the livestock population still seems to be a taboo subject.

The livestock farming sector will have to take major steps to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses. That is a hard truth for a sector to face, which has increasingly had to produce its wares at cost price. Animal produce should no longer be offered at the lowest price as a mass export good. The market for regional quality products is growing considerably. It offers opportunities for farmers to receive an honest income from sustainable, animal-friendly products. In this sense, farmers should support the new calls for a qualitatively better form of agricultural production from which family businesses can earn a decent living.

Livestock farming doesn’t only produce meat, but also dairy products. For each gallon of milk that a cow yields, the animal will also produce an equivalent of 13 pounds CO2. This is primarily from the greenhouse gasses methane and nitrous oxide. These emissions make a massive contribution to the greenhouse effect, particularly because methane is 21 times more potent than CO2 and nitrous oxide at least 310 times stronger. The methane, which is emitted through the fermentation process in the gut (i.e. through belching and farting), cannot be taken up by trees and plants because the compound (CH4) is too complex. It takes between 10 to 12 years for methane to degrade and to convert into CO2, which can be ‘captured’ by plants.

If the dairy farmers no longer deny the truth, but dare to confront it, they can work together with other social partners to achieve a more climate friendly form of operational management. For example, by using less artificial fertiliser, less concentrated feed, producing their own energy supply and, in particular, working towards producing quality products that generate a fair price. Dairy farmers should use their agricultural expertise to produce less and better. Milk should at least have the same price tag as a chic bottle of mineral water. There should be cheese that is produced in an environmentally and animal-friendly way for which a good price is paid.

In order to effectively tackle the climate problem, a reduction in the consumption of animal proteins will be unavoidable. To a large extent, the solution to the climate problem can be found on our very own plates. What we dish up can make a real contribution. Meat is wasted energy!

Quite a few films have convincingly succeeded in drawing public attention to the issue of global warming, but they have repeatedly ignored one of the most important causes of climate change: intensive livestock production. The documentary Meat the Truth is a high-profile project undertaken by the Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation and presented by the former leader of the Dutch Party for the Animals. The calculations on greenhouse gas emissions derive from and have been validated by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN (FAO), the World Watch Institute, the Institute for Environmental Studies of the Free University Amsterdam and numerous other authoritative sources.

If anyone should be criticised for the problems with which the agricultural sector is confronted and which sometimes leads individual farming families to despair, then it should be those responsible for the current agricultural policy. Throughout the past few decades, a livestock industry has evolved, which not only confronts us, but also future generations with the excesses of ecological, social and animal welfare policy. The architects of factory farming and the large-scale livestock industry can be blamed for the problems of the agricultural family businesses. Meat the Truth clearly shows that things can be very different.

The US premiere of the international version of the documentary was held at the Egyptian Theatre, Hollywood, Los Angeles on October 3rd, 2008. Many well-known celebrities, such as Pamela Anderson, Bill Maher, James Cromwell, Emily Deschanel, Tony Denison and Esai Morales participated in the making of the film. Meat the Truth is now available on DVD, click on the link in the picture to order a copy now!

* This article converts all greenhouse gasses into CO2 equivalents (pounds CO2).

** Data for calculations for cars:

· 303,480,824 Americans (US census Bureau)

· A car drives an average of 12.000 miles, or 19.300 km (1 mile = 1.61 km) (United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration, 2001 & Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), EPA, 2005)

· The emissions created by the average American car are 5.2 ton CO2e per annum, or 270 g per kilometre (US-EPA, 2005)

· The average American eats meat every day. By not doing so, he would save 2.3 tons a year, or 2300 kilos

· For the entire US, this is therefore: 2,3 x 303.000.000 = 697 Megatons. Note from Dutch researchers: the University of Chicago researchers assumed that an American who made the transition to a vegetarian diet would save 1500 kg CO2, an American who swapped his car for a Prius: 1000 kg. Our calculations arrive at a slightly higher figure, but they are also to a large extent based on the FAO statistics from 2006; Eshel and Martin’s paper was from 2005. The order of size is, however, correct.

· I day less meat thus comes to 99.6 megatons (697.2 / 7 days)

· This boils down to 19.2 million cars being taken off the road (99.6 / 5,2 ton per car)

· In 7 days without meat, you would save as much as the emissions from all private cars in the US (135 million cars divided by 19.2 million is 7.03 days) (United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration)

Emission statistics derive from fueleconomy.gov, an initiative of the US Department of Energy and US EPA.

Hummer, SUV en Prius

· A Toyota Prius (the most energy efficient car on the market) emits 3.2 tons of CO2 a year. A Hummer (Model H3) emits 10.5 tons. The difference is thus 7.3 tons per annum. In the US, a vegetarian saves 2.3 tons a year. How can a vegetarian then be more environmentally friendly? Kim indicates that the comparison applies to a SUV and a Prius, but not to the Hummer. In the calculation below, we show that if ALL Americans stopped eating meat, there would still not be as much saved as the Hummer-Prius option. One can, however, say that a vegetarian in a medium-sized car (5.2 ton) saves more than a meat-eater in a Prius (3,2 + 2,3 = 5,3 ton)

· As noted above, the average American car emits 5,2 tons, which means that replacing all cars

with a hybrid Prius creates a saving of 135 million cars x 2 ton CO2 = 270 megaton. (difference between the Prius of 3.2 and an average car of 5.2)

· Eating less meat for three days a week thus results in as much as replacing half of all cars with Prius models.

· If all cars were Hummers (135 million) times 10.5 tons emissions, then the total emissions would be 1417.5 megatons. Prius models alone would result in 432 megatons. The difference is 985.5 megatons. Thus this is more than the 697.2 savings of the vegetarian. Could we then prove the Hummer vegetarian vs Prius meat eater? No, but we could look at a BMW X3, which emits exactly that difference (7.3 tons per year). This, however, only applies if the whole country went vegetarian!

Assumptions energy saving bulbs

· According to the US EPA, using an ENERGY STAR Lamp of 25 watts (more widespread than energy saving bulbs in the US) instead of an ordinary light bulb saves an average of 75% CO2. The average CO2 domestic emissions are 7.4 tons per year per household (EPA). 20% of this is 1.48 tons and the savings of replacing all bulbs with energy efficient ones is thus 1.48 x 75% = 1.11 ton per year. There are 114 million households in the US (US Census Bureau), therefore the total domestic savings are 126 megatons.

Assumptions plane tickets

· Return New York – Los Angeles costs 2160 kg (atmosfair.de. Based on IPCC emissions from aviation) In six days per American you can save as much CO2 as is created by a return from New York to Los Angeles.

Images:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/procsilas/3203650430/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cordery/362726171/