Underestimates of US emissions and global implications for industrializing animal agriculture

Abstract

Environmental impacts of intensive, industrial meat and dairy production are a major concern. However, the majority of global warming emissions from animal agriculture are estimated to come from extensive, pastoral systems of production. Animal emissions are estimated using complex models, but these models can contain multiple errors that often go unreported. Modeled emissions estimates can be corroborated using measurements of greenhouse gases in the air above and downwind of areas where animals are raised, using planes, tall towers, and satellites. These atmospheric measurements suggest that total global animal emissions are accurately estimated by models. However, in the US, where production is predominantly industrialized, animal emissions are frequently underestimated by models. Intensive methods of meat and dairy production are expanding globally. This expansion is frequently justified by environmental science and economic development experts as a way to reduce the carbon footprint of meat and dairy. This guidance memo demonstrates that the emissions savings potential of intensifying production may be oversold. Reducing consumer demand for meat and dairy products, while helping producers diversify their income and shift toward food crops where possible, is recommended as a more reliable strategy for mitigating global warming. Reducing consumption and production avoids environmental tradeoffs associated with intensification, including confinement, water pollution, and antibiotic resistance. Additionally, improving the efficiency of pastoral systems can reduce environmental impacts, provided that improvements are accompanied by strict ecosystem conservation and do not lead to animal confinement.

The New Meatways and Sustainability

“…the relevant time reference point for GHGs, especially methane, in the atmosphere. As Hayek (2019) notes, the errors present in the standard model estimations may not only be compounding, but also often go underreported. He notes that, "although emissions from the models are uncertain, [this] does not mean that they are wrong.…”

“…To give but two examples, for Australia, where especially beef production is highly emissions intensive, short-term (20-year) GHG emissions from all agriculture are estimated by some to be as high as 54% of all Australian anthropogenic GHGs, with animal agriculture contributing most of this (Beyond Zero Emissions, 2014). Further, Hayek (2019) estimates GHG emissions from meat production with a so-called top-down method (measuring directly from the air) and concludes that for countries such as the United States, standard (bottom-up) model estimates seriously underestimate the emissions, due to the high level of industrialization of meat production there. As intensive animal agriculture continues its expansion, this same underestimation affects an increasing number of countries and regions Hayek argues.…”

“…Reductions in consumption must be an integral part of the picture. Further, the assumption that intensification significantly decreases GHG emissions from extensive animal farming has also been called into question (see Hayek, 2019).…”

“…More sustainably produced meat could consist of a switch between beef and chicken, or it could originate from overall more efficient production. The latter option would most likely result in further global expansion of intensive animal agriculture which could, however, produce lower GHG emissions per unit of production, although the extent of this benefit may have been overestimated (see Hayek, 2019). Advocating for minor reductions in meat eating would belong to this approach.…”

“…The assumption that intensification significantly decreases GHG emissions from extensive animal farming has been called into question (see Hayek, 2019).…”