Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

[Trinity]

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor The Independent UK


Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.

The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.

Published: 10 December 2006

Goto original article

[Annpan]

My God...

Another great reason to become vegetarian... but I do love a good roll and bacon. I think I'll be cutting right back on the beef now but its places like McD and BK that are the worse offenders, surely.

If 9% of CO2 pollution comes from periferals (growing food, transportation, etc) of beef production it is a good argument to buy organic, buy local or even better... grow your own.

[Stonehead]

[Muddypause]

When the Independent writes that cow emissions are more damaging than CO2 from cars, it's omitting the fact that a huge proportion of those cow emissions are actually from the transport of animal products. In other words, it's the trucks not the cows that are emitting the carbon - just like cars.

But the article (in line with others that I've read) is not talking about carbon emissions, but about greenhous gases. It does clearly say that. Besides carbon, the issue in point is methane - the result of (in this case) bovine digestion.

I have read in several articles that methane is many times more damaging as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and that cows and their manure emit rather a lot of it. But I don't know enough about chemistry to comment whether bovine digestive systems could be considered overall methane neutral (as their carbon emissions may possibly be). And I don't know whether sheep, or pigs, or dogs, or humans are less of a problem in this regard than cattle. Maybe just a question of numbers.

[Stonehead]

But the article (in line with others that I've read) is not talking about carbon emissions, but about greenhous gases. It does clearly say that. Besides carbon, the issue in point is methane - the result of (in this case) bovine digestion.

I have read in several articles that methane is many times more damaging as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and that cows and their manure emit rather a lot of it. But I don't know enough about chemistry to comment whether bovine digestive systems could be considered overall methane neutral (as their carbon emissions may possibly be). And I don't know whether sheep, or pigs, or dogs, or humans are less of a problem in this regard than cattle. Maybe just a question of numbers.

Fine, you and the media are undoubtedly right. I really should know better than to read original reports and studies or get involved with issues like this because the second, third and fourth hand accounts are always correct.

[Muddypause]

Hmm... Don't really know what to make of that. Is that a PuttingMeInMyPlace event, are you being deeply ironic, or is that a Stoney tantrum? This would be a rather unpleasant place if any of us here thought that our posts were beyond comment.

But just to clarify, I absolutely wasn't commenting about the integrity of you or what you said, Stoney. I was simply (and unconfrontationaly, too, I thought) attempting to put it into the full context of the article you were criticising. Your post only addressed, IIRC, the issue of carbon emissions. On my reading, the article seemed to go to some pains to establish that it was addressing a broader gamut. I was trying to gain some insight into these broader issues.

I did not question for one minute the validity of your reply; only that it seemed not to be addressing the fullness of the issue in hand. Now that you've deleted your reply, it would seem impossible for me or anyone else to develop the enquiry further.

[Cheezy]

I'll chuck in my penny's worth based on NOT having read the full 400 page report or even the article.

There are several things that spring to mind.

I think the major point about this is the mass farming of any animal has an impact on the land. You look at the Brazillian rain forest getting torched just so they can ranch cheap meat for fat Americans to gorge on.
The impact is four fold.
1.Your destroying forest, this is producing gases, and takes out the facility to sequate CO2
2.your reducing rain fall , then adding in an increased demand for water.
3. and emitting CO2 from transport,fertilsier,drug production etc.
4. Now the forth factor is this cows eat grass it contains carbon, the grass regrows and absorbs CO2 to acheive this, so it should be in balance...No
because the cows arn't efficient and emit methane which is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and it doesnt get used in photosynthesis. So your switching CO2 for methane, but I don't know what the conversion rate are verses the emmision. I would hazard a guess that a hell of a lot of CO2 gets absorbed by the grass and cows for a relatively smaller amount of methane, but I don't know.

But humans also produce methane (especially vege's!!!), so does land fill, rotting vegetation.

What needs to be done is what people here are trying to do, cut down on food miles, grown your own etc. be responcible and understand the impact we have by eating cheap foods (cause and effect..it's cheap because..it costs the earth.)

The earth is warming up, for what ever reason be it us or a regular cycle thats a different discussion, and if the sea temperatures radically go up it could seriously destabilise the methane hydrate beds on our continental shelves, and I tell you what the impact of that will be a hell of a lot more than farting cows!.