Livestock vs. Transportation: Which is Really Worse?
When it comes to the effect livestock has on the environment, most people “in the know” will cite the UN’s “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report. This report basically claims that more greenhouse gas comes from livestock (18%) than all of the world’s transportation combined (15%). However, Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert from the University of California-Davis, did some detective work recently and his findings strongly suggest otherwise.
Mitloehner discovered that the livestock vs. transportation comparison is based on faulty data. How? Well, according to him, the livestock portion of the report takes into account everything that goes into animal agricultural procedures, from clearing land to grow food for the animals all the way to the end packaged meat product found on grocery shelves. The transportation portion of the report does not do that. It doesn’t take into account drilling for oil, creating roads, manufacturing cars, gas stations, dealerships, and so forth. Mitloehner refers to it simply as comparing “apples and oranges”.
According to his own calculations, 26% of all US greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation; only 3% comes from raising livestock for food. Don’t get him wrong, though. He isn’t completely ruling out the fact that the livestock industry does, indeed, cause damage to the environment. He is simply saying that the figures weren’t right and neither was the method used to compare both categories (livestock and transportation). The livestock officer at FAO, Pierre Gerber, even agrees with him and admits it was a faulty comparison. Gerber states:
“It’s a weakness that we were aware of the issue when we used it, but it’s not the point of the report. We included the comparison only because we wanted to give the reader a frame of reference.” … “We’re working on a more sophisticated analysis that will break down emissions by commodity [animal], by farming system, and by region.”
So, where, exactly does Mitloehner stand on the whole livestock/transportation debate? He believes that rather than focusing on scientifically inaccurate information, or even focusing on producing and eating less meat, people should instead “focus on cutting our use of oil and coal for electricity, heating and vehicle fuels”. He also adds:
“We certainly can reduce our greenhouse gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk.” … “Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat.”
What does this mean for you? If you eat meat, that’s okay, just keep in mind where it’s coming from and everything that goes into bringing it to your plate. Organic, grass-fed, or Fair Trade options would be the best way to go in the meat market. If you drive, bear in mind everything that goes into the creation and use of a vehicle (including what fuels it and the roads it’s driven on). Personally, I’m not afraid to say I like to eat meat. I am happy with my omnivorous way of life. However, I don’t drive (or even own a vehicle) and I walk as much as possible.
Ultimately, the way you choose to live your life is up to you. No one can force you to eat a certain food or partake in a certain way of life. But remember, this is the only home we have and it needs to be taken care of.
By Heidi Marshall
Further Information:
Time.com – Meat-Eating vs. Driving: Another Climate Change Error?
Tags: climate change, flawed comparison, fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, livestock, meat, study, Transportation









You can also log in to post a comment.