Carbon

Carbon forum: Has beef become the sacrificial lamb in emissions debate?

Eric Barker, 04/08/2022

THE “beef is bad for the environment” drum has been beating loudly again in recent months, with media outlets and governments making big claims about the industry’s footprint.

New Zealand, The Netherlands and Ireland have all legislated agricultural emissions in recent months – a reduction in livestock numbers could be on the cards in all three countries. Many media articles also appear to be supporting a reduction in livestock, with “beef is bad” messages appearing to be accepted as fact.

One recent The Guardian article claimed that avoiding meat and dairy was the single biggest way for readers to reduce their environmental impact, while another in The Washington Post said beef was up there with the biggest emitters in the world.

“If cattle were a country, they would be the third-largest emitter, behind only China and the United States,” the Washington Post article said, citing the World Resources Institute as its source.

The story advocated for consumers to halve their beef intake and replace it with pork.

But the comparison to the US and China’s emissions omits some significant details about the way livestock emissions work.

Many scientists, including University of Oxford professor Myles Allen and University of California Davis professor Frank Mitloehner, have long argued that is unfair to put ruminant livestock methane emissions on the same playing field as emissions from fossil fuels.

Put simply, both scientists point out that the ability of methane from cattle to break down in the atmosphere and be captured by trees and soil on the land on which it is grazed means it should be accounted differently to fossil fuel emissions.

Professor Allen recently told an Irish Government inquiry the focus has gone away from contributions to warming.

“We’re saddled with the misperception of conflict because of the incorrect way we measure the impact of farming on climate,” he said.

“This is a problem we don’t need to have and if we measured the impact of farming on global temperature rather than carbon footprint, I think farmers would be reassured by the results.”

It must be said the Washington Post conceded that the beef industry had its positives.

“(Cattle) can turn grass into high-quality human food; they are often the best way to get food out of land unsuitable for crops; when their grazing is well-managed, they can improve soil health and even sequester some carbon,” it said.

“But they can’t sequester enough carbon to make up for what their digestive systems emit and the greenhouse gas cost of the deforestation that is driven primarily by that increasing demand for beef.”

These claims are disputed by the industry. Meat & Livestock Australia says a reduction in numbers will not be needed by the industry to reach the carbon neutral by 2030 target, and Prof Mitloehner has said multiple times that emissions from cattle can be reduced without destocking.

Recently, a conference in Brisbane heard a property in Central Queensland is sequestering 50kg of carbon per 1kg of beef – with methane emissions accounted for in the calculation. More details are expected to come on that project, which is currently being reviewed by the independent regulator.

The beef industry has openly acknowledged that concerns exist around livestock emissions, and all sources quoted in this article have said emissions are a problem that needs to be dealt with, and can be dealt with.

Despite the genuine work underway to reduce its footprint, some media show little interest in seeking out the full story, and find it easy to just accept the “beef is bad for the environment” message without challenge or fact-checking.

Putting livestock methane into rational perspective is a little more difficult, but engaging more with the science community will lead to a better outcome for everyone.

 

AgCarbon Central has been featuring regular articles from industry stakeholders in a series called the carbon forum. Today we have decided to do our own. See previous articles below.

 

 

 

HAVE YOUR SAY

Your email address will not be published.

Your comment will not appear until it has been moderated.
Contributions that contravene our Comments Policy will not be published.

Comments

  1. Douglas Miles, 05/08/2022

    Don’t eat pork. It’s beef or starve. Enough of this demonisation of the beef industry from within the beef industry. Nobody says a word about human flatulence and how it effects the environment. We all fart. Stop giving these quasit think tanks air. We’ve got enough problems with the negativity going on with foot and mouth disease. We need positivity and a firm policy to keep it out of Australia. Focus on that and not the results of.

  2. Val Dyer, 04/08/2022

    Focus more on emissions from the production and maintenance of computers, aviation travel, renewable energy use of fossil fuels..And the list is long.

  3. Peter Dunn, 04/08/2022

    Last weekend there was a media report that the ‘Guardian’ was experiencing a significant drop in profits, and is it any wonder, given the misleading ideological claim quoted above. As for the Washington Post quote, a huge, huge round of applause for actually mentioning that there are major emitters (and with no implications about Australia). That departure from the norm is breath taking. Unfortunately, it was done only to create a ruse, that being that collectively cattle are among the major emitters. The W. Post was quoting the World Resources Institute, which of course absolves the W. Post of all responsibility for accuracy. However, it does not absolve it from the dishonesty of quoting an obviously fictitious comparison. One could be forgiven for asking, are we seeing signs of desperation?

Get Beef Central's news headlines emailed to you -
FREE!