Why beef is so harmful to our environment.

I’m sure all of you have heard that beef is not too good for the environment, but few people know how destructive it really is. Beef, or more specifically cows, have an enormous carbon footprint mostly in the form of methane. Cattle account for 65% of emissions from the livestock sector, meaning they are by far the largest contributor. According to National Geographic, without decreasing our beef consumption, keeping global warming below 2 degrees, which is the goal of the Paris agreement, will be very difficult and achieving the ideal limit of 1.5 degrees will be impossible.

It is a common misconception that the best way to make your diet more eco-friendly is to eat local foods. The reality, however, is that transportation only accounts for a very small portion of its carbon footprint. For example, although food is responsible for 10-30% of a household’s carbon footprint, transportation is only 5% of that, while production is 68%. [KL1] This, of course is also true if you only look at the carbon footprint of beef and not your entire diet. Therefore, eating local beef does not do much to reduce the amount of pollution it causes.

The real issue is the production of beef. This not only requires a lot of land but is responsible for significant methane emissions.

Firstly, cattle need land to live on. According to the New York Times, currently 30% of the earth’s ice-free land is being used to raise livestock, most of which is cattle. Furthermore, feed production and meat processing also require space. The FAO has stated that these last two factors represent 45% and 39% of total emissions when considering the entire livestock sector. [KL2] Once again beef is the most demanding of all livestock, for example it needs 10 times the resources that chicken does. The main issue with the excessive need for land of the industry is that it results in deforestation, since farmers cannot find space elsewhere.

A serious issue with cattle is their role in the emission of greenhouse gasses. Most of these emissions are in the form of methane which is much more potent than carbon dioxide. Overall, cows are responsible 10% of all human made greenhouse gasses. However, methane is not only emitted directly from cattle. A study recently found that the top three meat companies emitted more greenhouse gasses in 2016 than all of France.[KL3]

Finally, despite the fact that there are possible large scale solutions in progress such as growing beef using stem cells in order to reduce the need for cattle or the transition of the meat industry to sustainable farming methods, none of these are likely to show results in the near future. Therefore, it is up to us to make a change.

The simplest way to do this is to replace beef with a different type of meat. According to a study conducted by the help of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in the USA, replacing beef with chicken will cut the carbon footprint of your diet in half. Although, if you are not prepared to cut beef out of your diet completely, it is enough to reduce the amount of times you eat it. For example, eating beef once a day has the same carbon footprint as driving a car for 11,500 km, but eating it once a week is only the equivalent of 1,700 km, which is merely 15% of the previous amount.[KL4]

Of course, if you are willing to do so, giving up meat altogether, is unquestionably the most environmentally friendly solution. All you have to do is make sure that you still get all of the nutrients you need.

Sources:

New York Times “The real problem with beef”
The Guardian “What is the true cost of meat”
National Geographic “Choosing chicken over beef cuts our carbon footprints a surprising amount”
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
University of Michigan, Center for sustainable systems: Carbon footprint factsheet
BBC News “Climate change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint”