Livestock farming, climate change and claims
The blog below was originally written on 30th October, but new information regarding the WorldWatch report has come to light (see comments below).
Climate March, 5th December 2009
Today, as many thousands of people marched through London and other cities today to demand actions on climate change, hundreds of people joining the Veg*n Climate March are specifically calling for action on the polluting livestock industry.
Animals Count recently kindly requested a meeting with the Hon. Mr Hillary Benn, to discuss the issue of the impact of livestock on climate change, however, he was unfortunately too busy.
We are concerned that leaders and negotiators in Copenhagen will not take the right decisions regarding the necessary curbing of the global livestock industry, but we hope that the marches today will provide yet another reason for leaders to listen to the concerns of citizens around the world.
Livestock farming and climate change – original blog
During the past few days, the impact of the livestock industry on climate change has been debated extensively in the media, particularly in The Times. On 27 Oct Lord Stern recommended a vegetarian diet to halt the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions such as CO2 and methane, given that the livestock sector is responsible for 18% of all GHG emissions, more than all transport combined (FAO, 2006). Animals Count fully supports the call for less meat and dairy production and consumption.
Another recent report published by Goodland and Anhang in the WorldWatch magazine claimed that certain factors had not been included in the FAO, such as breathing of the animals, which increased the contribution of the livestock industry to GHG emissions to as much as 51%. However, several scientists (e.g. Stephen Walsh) analysed the report and found the claims to be exaggerated or not valid.
Scientists in The Times today warned NGOs and others not to exaggerate the climate change claims, as this would play into the hands of sceptics, of which there also seem to be a growing number. However, there is certainly consensus among the majority of scientists, environmentalists and politicians that the climate is changing; it is just not known exactly how fast or what the precise impacts it will have on the world.
Yesterday, Lester Brown, one of the most respected international experts on food, farming and environmental policy and who founded both the prestigious Earth Policy Institute and the ground-breaking WorldWatch Institute, gave the CIWF Peter Roberts memorial lecture. He provided an overview of factors influencing world food security and the impact on the environment. Growing world population, increase in higher protein diets (moving ‘up’ the foodchain and consuming more animal products), falling water tables, melting arctic and antarctic ice sheets and glaciers around the world will cause grain prices to rise, rice fields to flood and clean drinking water to become a scarcity. Lester argued that we must drastically reduce our energy consumption, replace coal fired stations with renewable energy (most notably wind farms and solar energy), and move ‘down’ the food chain (i.e. consume less animal products).
If the leaders at the Copenhagen Climate Change Top are serious about reducing CO2 emissions, they will have to alter global agricultural policy 180 degrees. Consumers, for their part, can take important steps to reduce animal cruelty, their ecological carbon footprint and world hunger by reducing meat and dairy consumption (better still to go vegan).
Other recent reports have confirmed that particularly Africa, but also other developing countries will be worst hit. 25 million more children are expected to go hungry by 2050 due to climate change. The FAO estimates that 1.02 billion people are undernourished worldwide in 2009. This represents more hungry people than at any time since 1970 and a worsening of the unsatisfactory trends that were present even before the economic crisis. Is this fair?
Even if we take a sceptics point of view about the extent to which climate change can be attributed to anthropogenic (human) causes, we should still apply the precautionary principle and cut down our meat and dairy consumption. For the planet, world food security, human health, and most of all, for the 60 billion animals, who suffer horribly (in mostly intensive farms) across the world.
Animals Count has a vision that lasts longer than the next 4 or 5 year in office. Our vision will help create a better world for people and animals for generations to come. Isn’t that what everybody wants? Please support Animals Count now: www.animalscount.org
Thank you!
Jasmijn de Boo
Leader, Animals Count
Ms. de Boo, I think your column makes some good points. But I think it’s beneath you to impugn the reputations of Mr. Goodland and Mr. Anhang. After all, the FAO itself respected their scholarship sufficiently that they solicited their recent follow-up work which you can see at http://wellfedworld.org/PDF/FAOConsult12-09.pdf .
| Posted 2 years, 2 months agoThe Worldwatch report by Goodland and Anhang was certainly interesting. However it was not peer-reviewed (it did not include references and was not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal) and several scientists have analysed it and provided comments on the article.
Please see these critiques: http://bit.ly/2Z3QDk (David Steele, EarthSave) & http://bit.ly/4Ag9cx (Stephen Walsh).
| Posted 2 years, 2 months agoMs. De Boo, my responses to each of your points:
1. From my 20+ years of experience at the World Bank, I can assure you that this organization does not allow any employee to publish any article without very thorough peer review; and indeed the World Watch article went through that usual process.
2. Your critique of the World Watch article on the basis of its lack of references doesn’t make sense — as footnotes are never included in any article in this magazine; yet you can find thorough references for the Goodland/Anhang article on Worldwatch’s website.
3. In a certain way, it is fine for the critiques by Messrs. Walsh and Steele to have been posted — as any censorship in climate change debates could be harmful. However, it is bad form to suggest that David Steele’s views represent Earthsave, as Earthsave has heartily endorsed the 51+% estimate at http://www.earthsave.org/alert20nov2009.html . At least Stephen Walsh has enough shame to write that his views do not represent those of IVU. After all, neither he nor David Steele has credentials that are even a small fraction of those of Robert Goodland, co-author of the World Watch article. So as you might expect, the critiques by Messrs. Walsh and Steele appear to have had no peer review, versus abundant peer review of the World Watch article.
Posted 2 years, 2 months agoThank you for providing this useful information regarding the critiques of the paper. I am more familiar with papers that have references throughout the article, rather than posted on a different page (which are not linked to specific statements in a particular article).
If the 51% figure is indeed more realistic than 18%, than I do hope that this report will become the new reference and that it will replace the more conservative 18% figure from FAO’s 2006 report. I am personally vegan and believe that the world should take drastic measures to halt climate change, including a substantial reduction in animal production, and the promotion of plant-based diets.
Thank you again for bringing this to my attention.
| Posted 2 years, 2 months ago