3 ms·

9% is unfortunately underestimate. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM Here's an 18% estimate

by pitchka 11y ago

9% is unfortunately underestimate. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM Here's an 18% estimate while transportation is 13%. Here's a 51% estimate, trumping everything else. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 Some hypothesise that the footprint is even larger. Given the fact that we have to produce food for around 100 billion animals yearly (where a significant amount of these animals weighs more than 250lbs it's not surprising it takes a lot of energy to do that. Machines like cars, planes are on the other hand pretty efficient. Unlike animal bodies.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
You're comparing 18% world-wide to 9% in the US. Both of those numbers sound right. People drive more miles and use more electricity per capita in the US than in BRIC countries. The 51% number is silly. First they count "livestock respiration" as a source of CO2 but that CO2 came from the atmosphere during the last year via plants the animals ate, which they even point out and then try to hand wave away. Then they count land use (i.e. natural forest converted for livestock), which is a serious problem in Brazil and Asia but not the US. Then they argue that the factor used for methane should be higher than the one FAO uses because methane has a shorter half life in the atmosphere than CO2, but that's a double edged sword. We could get a more immediate effect by reducing methane emissions but not reducing CO2 emissions takes longer to recover from than not reducing methane emissions. It's an argument that methane and CO2 are different and we need to reduce both, not an argument that we should reduce methane instead of CO2. And then they point out some miscellaneous factors. Some of them are just silly, like meat requires refrigeration, as if people are going to stop having refrigerators in the alternative. And most of the real ones apply world-wide but not in the US, e.g. FAO's numbers are old and livestock production is now higher world-wide but not in the US, the baseline was Minnesota and third world practices are less efficient, etc. So the EPA's 9% still sounds about right for the US. But third world countries might want to consider growing more vegetables.
- pitchka 11y ago
  Why do you think that the USA eats only its own meat? For example Denmark imports huge amounts of soybean from Brazil, China and USA. So, bunch of these first world countries are delegating their carbon footprint to others. When you look at global warming you do not state is as a problem happening in the US. It's happening everywhere.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > Why do you think that the USA eats only its own meat? USA is a net exporter of meat. > When you look at global warming you do not state is as a problem happening in the US. It's happening everywhere. But the contributions are different. USA needs to burn less oil and coal, tropical countries need to stop cutting natural forests, China and India need fewer pig farms. You won't fix it by having less livestock in the US and burning less oil in Africa and not cutting forests in Russia.
    - pitchka 11y ago
      How can we expect that tropical countries stop cutting rainforests if USA, Australia, Denmark and others want to continue exporting meat? Brazil is meeting the demand for soybean by cutting the rainforest and selling it to USA. The problem is global, not local. The main exporters are the main problem. It might be that Brazil has a huge footprint regarding forest cuts but it is not doing that for themselves but for others. So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock. Not to mention that 50 billion chickens yearly thrive mostly on soybean.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        > Brazil is meeting the demand for soybean by cutting the rainforest and selling it to USA. The problem isn't demand for soybeans. If there was less demand for soybeans then they would be producing palm kernel oil or something else. And there is nothing wrong with soybeans grown on land that wasn't previously rainforest. What is necessary is a law against cutting down the rainforest which is actually enforced. The result of that law may be that the US will have to get its soybeans from somewhere else or will have to buy something else instead of soybeans, but that is a consequence not a cause. > So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock. It probably doesn't. Agricultural practices are more advanced in the US and the land is already converted. If livestock is to be raised anywhere it is more sensible to do it there than most other places. Not all countries are the same.

by pitchka 11y ago

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

You're comparing 18% world-wide to 9% in the US. Both of those numbers sound right. People drive more miles and use more electricity per capita in the US than in BRIC countries. The 51% number is silly. First they count "livestock respiration" as a source of CO2 but that CO2 came from the atmosphere during the last year via plants the animals ate, which they even point out and then try to hand wave away. Then they count land use (i.e. natural forest converted for livestock), which is a serious problem in Brazil and Asia but not the US. Then they argue that the factor used for methane should be higher than the one FAO uses because methane has a shorter half life in the atmosphere than CO2, but that's a double edged sword. We could get a more immediate effect by reducing methane emissions but not reducing CO2 emissions takes longer to recover from than not reducing methane emissions. It's an argument that methane and CO2 are different and we need to reduce both, not an argument that we should reduce methane instead of CO2. And then they point out some miscellaneous factors. Some of them are just silly, like meat requires refrigeration, as if people are going to stop having refrigerators in the alternative. And most of the real ones apply world-wide but not in the US, e.g. FAO's numbers are old and livestock production is now higher world-wide but not in the US, the baseline was Minnesota and third world practices are less efficient, etc. So the EPA's 9% still sounds about right for the US. But third world countries might want to consider growing more vegetables.

pitchka 11y ago
Why do you think that the USA eats only its own meat? For example Denmark imports huge amounts of soybean from Brazil, China and USA. So, bunch of these first world countries are delegating their carbon footprint to others. When you look at global warming you do not state is as a problem happening in the US. It's happening everywhere.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > Why do you think that the USA eats only its own meat? USA is a net exporter of meat. > When you look at global warming you do not state is as a problem happening in the US. It's happening everywhere. But the contributions are different. USA needs to burn less oil and coal, tropical countries need to stop cutting natural forests, China and India need fewer pig farms. You won't fix it by having less livestock in the US and burning less oil in Africa and not cutting forests in Russia.
  - pitchka 11y ago
    How can we expect that tropical countries stop cutting rainforests if USA, Australia, Denmark and others want to continue exporting meat? Brazil is meeting the demand for soybean by cutting the rainforest and selling it to USA. The problem is global, not local. The main exporters are the main problem. It might be that Brazil has a huge footprint regarding forest cuts but it is not doing that for themselves but for others. So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock. Not to mention that 50 billion chickens yearly thrive mostly on soybean.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > Brazil is meeting the demand for soybean by cutting the rainforest and selling it to USA. The problem isn't demand for soybeans. If there was less demand for soybeans then they would be producing palm kernel oil or something else. And there is nothing wrong with soybeans grown on land that wasn't previously rainforest. What is necessary is a law against cutting down the rainforest which is actually enforced. The result of that law may be that the US will have to get its soybeans from somewhere else or will have to buy something else instead of soybeans, but that is a consequence not a cause. > So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock. It probably doesn't. Agricultural practices are more advanced in the US and the land is already converted. If livestock is to be raised anywhere it is more sensible to do it there than most other places. Not all countries are the same.