LINNEA LUEKEN
A recent article at Vox, titled “Scientists are measuring burps and farts. It could help save the planet,” claims that methane produced by farm animals is causing dangerous global warming, and thus that reducing agriculture-related methane is critical to limiting warming to the 1.5°C target established for political ends in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. [emphasis, links added]
This is false.
Animal-related methane is not a threat to the environment, contributing little if anything to global warming.
The article primarily references research efforts by scientists in Columbia who measured the amount of methane different farm animals produce in their burps and gas depending on what kind of forage they eat to determine the feed that will produce the least methane.
Animals are placed in chambers and their emissions are monitored.
Vox writes:
These chambers are part of a multiyear project to lower the amount of methane produced by farm animals. This is important. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, responsible for roughly 20 to 30 percent of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. The bulk of global methane emissions stem from human activities, and the largest single source among them is agriculture — namely, the burps of ruminant animals such as cattle, goats, and sheep, as well as their manure.
Vox cites the International Energy Agency, not a scientific organization by the way, to claim that most methane emissions are due to human activity. This is not a fact and is likely false.
Multiple peer-reviewed research papers here and here, for example, have found that natural sources of methane, such as but not limited to releases from wetlands, and other agricultural sources, such as emissions from rice paddies, are the largest sources of methane in the atmosphere.
Indeed, recent research indicates that human methane emissions from oil and gas operations, for example, have declined in recent decades even as production has increased, and atmospheric methane in general has grown – suggesting an increase from natural or other human sources.
Although methane is, as Vox says, a “powerful” greenhouse gas with much more warming potential per molecule than carbon dioxide, it has a short atmospheric life so it plays a relatively minor role in the atmosphere when it comes to long-term warming.
NASA, one source for Vox’s story, admits as much.
What Vox and NASA neglect to mention, however, is that methane’s absorption bands occur at wavelengths of the most powerful and abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, which makes up 97 percent of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Methane, a small trace gas, is a very minor player despite alarmism surrounding it.
With that in mind, it is more useful to look at greenhouse gas emissions in general. Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) focusing on the United States (since the nation has the best and most easily available data) clearly show that livestock emissions are a small part of human emissions overall. (See figure below)
Figure 1. Greenhouse gas emissions by sector in the United States. Note that beef production is less than half of the entire livestock sector, at just 2 percent. Source: Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Graphic by Anthony Watts. Artwork icons in graphic licensed from 123rf.com.
Vox targets beef production in particular, writing:
“Without addressing emissions from the food sector, it’s impossible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, beyond which climate change will be catastrophic. Lowering meat (and especially beef) consumption is probably the most important part of that effort, but it’s an uphill battle as meat consumption is projected to rise globally over the next few years.”
But beef production only represents two percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and is beaten out in emissions by crop agriculture, which contributes 10.2 percent of U.S. emissions.
These numbers are likely similar in most Western countries. Climate Realism has covered these facts multiple times before here, here, and here, for example. The facts haven’t changed, yet climate alarmist arguments are never revised or improved.
That data supports research done by Prof. Habil Wilhelm Windisch, Ph.D., of the Technical University of Munich, which indicates ruminants’ contributions to greenhouse gas emissions are exaggerated by climate alarmist groups and media outlets like Vox by a factor of 3 to 4 at minimum.
Further, methane emissions have been steadily dropping in the United States since the 1990s, according to data from the EPA. (See figure below)
It may be worthwhile to run the “livestock gas chamber” experiments for data collection purposes or to learn more about ruminant digestion and how to improve the efficient digestion of foods livestock consume.
Ultimately, though, it is a waste of time and money if stopping the gradual warming of the planet is the goal.
All it is likely to accomplish is to drive additional research dollars to scholars who attack modern high-yield fossil-fuel-intensive agriculture while making meat more expensive, making it harder for the world’s poorest people to afford it.
Vox’s comments clearly indicate they support reducing meat consumption and its projected increase in the developing world.
In short, the authors assumed from the outset that livestock methane emissions were contributing to dangerous climate change, which is, in fact, something they should have to prove.
As such, Vox is willing to mislead and ignore relevant data to make the case that reducing meat consumption is critical to fighting what the authors perceive as dangerous climate change.
This article (Methane Scare Tactics: Livestock Emissions Exaggerated To Push Meat-Reduction Agenda) was created and published by Climate Realism and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Linnea Lueken
*****
UK “Must Reduce Meat & Dairy 50%” – Climate Bureaucrats
TOGETHER DECLARATION
“Talk about kicking farmers when they’re down,’ said Together’s David Axe.
“The unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative Climate Change Committee has now told the Government the UK must reduce meat and dairy consumption by 50%… no doubt hoping their farmer tax raid will help reach this crazy ‘green’ target.”
(Join Together as a member to fight back.)
As reported in the Daily Mail, Starmer immediately denied the obvious implication – that such a target would be accompanied by measures to “encourage” people to change their eating habits.
In its article on the proposed privation, Green Queen was probably more honest:
“Climate Change Committee chairman Piers Forster said encouraging dietary shifts among UK consumers would play a key role in achieving the 81% reduction by 2035, with one measure being to cut livestock numbers given their high methane output.”
Killing cattle because Climate. That went down well in the Netherlands!
The article goes on to suggest another voguish idea to control our diets while taking more money from us – “a carbon tax on meat and dairy – as Denmark has introduced – to reflect the true planetary cost of animal proteins”.
Energy rationing, restrictions on driving, attacks on farming and deciding what we eat… there seems to be no aspect of our lives the state doesn’t feel entitled to micro-manage in the name of climate change.
Since Oxfordshire County Council became the first local authority to ban animal products from its events in December 2021, councils have been at the forefront of the autocratic trend to control what we eat.
Nottingham City Council is one of the latest councils to ban meat and dairy products from its premises:
“Cllr Sam Lux, the local authority’s executive member for carbon reduction, leisure and culture, told a full council meeting that non-vegan food and drink would be banned because of “the high-carbon impact of meat and dairy products”.
“The council’s decision followed lobbying by Plant-Based Councils, an offshoot of Animal Rising – the animal rights protest group, which is itself an offshoot of Extinction Rebellion.
“The controversial activist group claims councils have a “duty” to “lead the way in normalising” plant-based food, which it says is “necessary” to “tackle the climate emergency”.
The Plant-Based Councils, just in case you can stomach more detail, campaigns for councils to adopt “fully plant-based internal catering … to address the climate emergency … to encourage the switch from emission-heavy food to plant-based options”.
Now Camden Council in London is openly telling residents to “eat less meat and diary”, while the BBC has a “climate change food calculator”.
The first problem here is the growing sense of entitlement by authorities, “experts” and the media to tell people how to live, right down to what we may or may not eat.
But the other important point about the push to reduce the consumption of meat and diary is whether it’s necessary or healthy.
Again, a minority agenda is being pushed at the expense of ordinary people, with certain interest groups seeking to change the food system to better serve their purposes.
The uproar about Arla is a case in point. The company has launched a project in which a number of farmer-suppliers along with supermarkets such as Tescos, Morrisons and Aldi, will use Bovaer, an additive to reduce methane emissions from cows.
“Although it has been claimed the additive has no side effects on cows, a report by the Food Standards Agency last year found that Bovaer ingredient 3-NOP “should be considered corrosive to the eyes, a skin irritant and potentially harmful by inhalation” to humans handling it,” according to this piece in the Standard.
News of the controversial trial caused public outrage, widespread pledges to boycott Arla products and assurances from many suppliers that they will not be using Bovaer in their products.
Meanwhile, it turns out that Defra has plans to mandate the use of methane-suppressants for cattle – by 2030, of course.
All this is justified by the rather improbable idea that constraining the ability of the UK’s cows to fart will influence the temperature of the Earth.
The same justification underpins attempts to replace meat and diary with artificial proteins developed in laboratories and produced on an industrial scale.
A report published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in September 2024 sets the scene with the claim that “the food system as a whole is responsible for a third of greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.”
It’s another spin on the familiar narrative that we – nasty, greedy, selfish people wanting to eat – are the problem; a blight on the planet.
Of course the report advocates solutions, from “methane management” requiring chemical intervention in the food chain to the development of “high-protein, low-impact food source farmed sustainably and processed into protein-rich foods for human consumption”. In other words, insect-based and lab-cultivated products.
The report is part of the WEF’s Food Innovation Hubs Global Initiative, a project started in 2021 to develop a new generation of artificial food products through technology and experimentation. The plan seems to involve producing them in poor countries such as India and Colombia and exporting them to consumers in the West.
Sounds like a business plan! But how green and healthy does it seem to you?
The commercial interests are clear – the press release launching the scheme featured endorsements from Chief Executive Officer of Unilever and Chief Executive Office of PepsiCo, while the members of the scheme’s Food Innovators network include Mastercard, Microsoft and PepsiCo.
Who do you trust more to produce the food on your table – Microsoft or Britain’s hardworking farmers?
The increasing attempts to control what we eat affect our food security, but they’re also about health, power and transparency.
For all these reasons it’s vital that people come together to protect our interests and Britain’s farmers, who are are key to ensuring a supply of natural food.
Together has been supporting the UK’s small farmers as they resist government attempts to tax them out of existence – see this video of Together’s Alan Miller talking to diary farmers in Dover.
Over the past three years, we’ve worked hard to expose the hidden interests behind the raft of new restrictions and requirements imposed in the name of climate change. We’ve commissioned original research by Ben Pile, exposing Sadiq Khan’s bogus ULEZ claims and influence of anti-democratic organisations such as UK100 and C40 Cities.
While legacy media largely endorses the climate narrative, we’re continually highlighting the real issues on social media and making the case for the public interest on radio and TV.
We pull together individuals and groups with common interests, organising public meetings and protests. We support a network of local groups across the country and can help members set up new local groups if there isn’t already one in their area.
But, as a grassroots organisation without public funding, corporate backers or big donors, we can’t do this without support from the public.
So please join us as a member here to support the fightback against impositions that risk making us less healthy, poorer and less free.
As the attack on our freedom and wellbeing extends to the food we put on our tables, the need for strong, collective action has never been more important.
You can join Together as a member now
This article (UK “must reduce meat & dairy 50%” – Climate bureaucrats) was created and published by Together Declaration and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply