Goddard 1

How is Livestock Contributing to Climate Change?

Anna Goddard

Professor Malcolm Campbell

UWRT 1103

04 November 2019
 Goddard 2

The mass production of livestock is a growing issue today that is often overlooked. The

connection between livestock production and climate change is largely unknown by the general

public. According to Lisa Friedman, a reporter on climate desk, livestock emissions account for

between 14 and 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Beef alone accounts for

three percent of these emissions. This is a prominent amount of emissions considering the United

States alone emitted 6.5 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2017 alone. Methane, nitrous

oxide, and carbon dioxide are amongst the greenhouse gases being emitted and are all harmful to

the environment. Methane is one of the highest emissions due to the fact that it is created by

animal manure, and this gas is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms to raising

global temperatures (Halverson). Global warming occurs when these greenhouse gases collect in

the atmosphere and absorb sunlight and radiation that have bounced off the earth’s surface.

These pollutants trap the heat in the atmosphere for up to centuries which is leading to a gradual

increase in global temperature. Global climate change is already having a visible effect on the

planet. The temperature is rising, glaciers are melting, plants are blooming sooner, heat waves

are more intense, and animals are changing locations. The amount of emissions being produced

could be cut significantly if the livestock industry were more closely regulated. Regulations

would include caps on the amount of emissions these companies are allowed to put out along

with government incentives to encourage companies to use more sustainable practices. The

livestock industry is contributing to the issue of climate change due to the large amount of

emissions produced. This could be combatted though more strict regulations on these companies.

The meat consumed by the American people has a direct impact on the environment.

These goods are costly in terms of resources used. Although all livestock uses many resources, it

has been found that beef production requires exponentially more resources, including water and
 Goddard 3

land, than any other animal product. According to Eshel Gidon, a research professor of

environmental physics, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted for a consumed mega calorie

(Mcal) of beef is much higher than any other livestock. While poultry, eggs, dairy, and pork all

are between one and three kg CO2, beef totals at about 10 kg. The reactive nitrogen produced by

the production of one Mcal of beef adds up to 176 grams while all other livestock weighs in

between 25 and 50 grams. Although beef is the costliest for the environment, it is the second

most popular animal category in the American diet, chicken being the first.

This is a growing problem due to the rise of meat consumption. Developing countries

have gone from consuming 86 metric tons of meat in 1980 to 112 metric tons in 2015. This is

even more prevalent in developing countries where the numbers have gone from 47 metric tons

to 184 metric tons, respectively. Beef production has more than doubled and chicken meat has

increased by a factor of ten. The blame can be pinned on both the supermarket industry growing

in developed countries and the rapid population growth (Thornton). According to Debra

Donahue, a professor who studies Environment & Natural Resources Law & Policy, by 2050,

global demand for livestock products is projected torise by 70 percent, if not double. With

growing demand, companies are pushing to get product out with little regard for how it is

impacting the environment.

Most agricultural emissions come from soil management, enteric fermentation, which is

the animal’s digestive process that releases carbon dioxide, energy use, and manure

management. According to Crystal Powers, an engineer who studies the interaction between

livestock and agroecosystems, excess nitrogen in agriculture systems converts to nitrous oxide,

which has 310 times greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide. This means that it
 Goddard 4

will trap the heat in the atmosphere for much longer, leading to a higher build up of gas and

ultimately leading to more rapid temperature increase.

Mismanagement of the soil can lead to higher emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous

oxide. Mismanagement of soil includes over fertilizing the soil and replanting on the same soil

too fast. Adding too much fertilizer causes an unnatural excess of nitrogen. Replanting on the

same soil prohibits the nitrogen cycle from decomposing plants, removing nitrogen from the air,

and converting nitrogen into usable forms for plants. Naturally, the cycle of respiration and

denitrification in plants is supposed to avoid this high emission rate. This cycle removes nitrogen

from the air and makes it usable for plants, then it is eventually released back into the air and the

cycle is repeated. However, with the mass production and use of fertilizer happening currently,

the natural cycle is unable to remove all of these emissions from the air. A large part of farming

is growing the feed for the animals, so with the large amount of livestock, there is a higher

demand for these crops to be grown, leading to these high emissions.

The byproducts of the animals themselves mostly include methane, which is also very

harmful when released in such mass quantities. With so many animals being packed into high

production farms, the manure is not properly being disposed resulting in high methane levels

being produced. The animals also release methane when performing bodily functions such as

passing gas. Methane levels have actually doubled in less than 10 years after remaining pretty

much level since the 1990s. There are many smaller additional sources of these greenhouse gas

emissions including farm equipment and engines, pesticides, seeds, plastic, and building

materials. There are so many small parts all contributing to the environmental impact the

livestock industry has and the only way to cut these emissions is increased government

regulation on what these companies can emit.

 Goddard 5

Currently, there is little to no emissions regulations on these large corporations that are

playing such a large part in the destruction of our planet. According to Nathan Halverson, a

producer who produces work with emphasis on the global food system, despite the United States

joining the other 194 countries in the Paris Climate Accord, livestock companies are already

failing to follow limitations regarding emissions. The United States has missed deadlines

regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and has not been transparent with the

numbers regarding the issue. Furthermore, Donald Trump pulled the United States out of this

pact making it even harder to enforce regulations on these companies. Other countries,

specifically China, have not revealed their numbers at all making the fight to avoid the

consequences of climate change difficult to win. Additionally, in the annual emissions reports,

the meat industry was left out entirely despite it being one of the top contributors to greenhouse

gases. This is due to the fact that these companies refused to publish their emissions. In 2015

when the Environmental Protection Agency found out about this, they put a ban from the agency

spending any additional money on trying to collect these reports. This ban has allowed these

large-scale livestock companies to remain unregulated and continue their destructive practices.

It is clear that the government is not doing their part to stop this. The ban on the EPA

gathering these companies’ emissions is the main thing holding the United States back from

regulating these companies. There are solutions to this problem, but without government

incentives, these companies are unlikely to change their ways as it will be costly and time

consuming.

Technology exists that captures the methane from animal waste and converts it into

electricity. Scientists have also found ways to reduce the methane emissions from cow belching

with methods such as changing their diets. Companies are unlikely to do this because of the lack
 Goddard 6

of incentive and the fact that they are in a loophole allowing them to currently avoid all

regulation. By doing nothing and allowing the pollution to escape in the atmosphere, these

companies do not have to adhere to the EPA greenhouse gas regulations. However, if they were

to capture the methane to transform into energy, it would be able to be regulated by the EPA,

requiring them to make costly changes to their production methods. It is clear these companies

want to get their product out with as little time and money as possible(Halverson).

The government needs to crack down on these companies and limit their emissions. They

need to provide incentive to these companies in order to make a change. The current government

actions to help climate change are not cutting it when one of the biggest contributors to the

problem is essentially being ignored. The destruction of the planet is not going to slow down

unless something is done about this.

Scientists say changing our food system will have a quicker impact on stopping climate

change than altering our fossil fuel habits (Halverson). That is why this is a pressing issue that

needs to be addressed by not only the government, but the people of the United States. It is

important to bring awareness of this issue to the public. If there is public demand for change, it

will become clear to election candidates and those already in office that taking action on this is

important to the people. There will be more push for action and budget going towards this issue.

If this issue is more widespread the American people, they will be able to do their part as well. A

nonvegetarian diet uses 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more energy and 13 times more fertilizer

than a vegetarian diet, according to a study by The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

(Sugg). Although a vegetarian or lifestyle is not attainable or practical for everyone because of

income or health issues, most people can do their part to at least cut down on meat consumption.

With less demand, there will be less need for production. This is not a problem that can be solved
 Goddard 7

with one person. This is going to take the effort of the companies contributing to the problem,

the government, and the people of the United States.

 Goddard 8

Works Cited

Friedman, Lisa, et al. “The Meat Question, by the Numbers.” The New York Times, 25 Jan. 2018.

www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html. Accessed 22 Oct.

2019.

Gidon, Eshel, et al. “Land, Irrigation Water, Greenhouse Gas, and Reactive Nitrogen Burdens of

Meat, Eggs, and Dairy Production in the United States.” Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol.111, no. 33, 2014, pp. 11996-

12001. www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/33/11996.full.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct. 2019.

Halverson, Nathan. “Why isn’t the U.S. Counting Meat Producers’ Climate Emissions?” Grist.

04 January 2016. grist.org/article/why-isnt-the-u-s-counting-meat-producers-climate-

emissions. Accessed 07 November 2019.

Powers, Crystal. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock & Poultry.” Livestock and Poultry

Environmental Learning Community. 05 Mar. 2019. lpelc.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-

from-livestock-poultry/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2019.

Sugg, Hayley. “Why Switching to a Vegan Diet Is Good for the Planet (and You!).” EatingWell.

www.eatingwell.com/article/291090/why-switching-to-a-vegan-diet-is-good-for-the-

planet-and-you/. Accessed 07 November 2019.

Thornton, Philip K. “Livestock Production: Recent Trends, Future Prospects.” US National

Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. 27 September 2010.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935116/. Accessed 07 November 2019.