Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Dec-11-18, 08:46
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,459
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default Misrepresentation of cattle, green house emissions

https://www.businessinsider.com/giv...c21a7rbRGwtEG7M

Quote:
Cows are getting a bad rap and it's time to set the record straight: Giving up meat won't save the planet


As the scale and impacts of climate change become increasingly alarming, meat is a popular target for action. Advocates urge the public to eat less meat to save the environment. Some activists have called for taxing meat to reduce consumption of it.

A key claim underlying these arguments holds that globally, meat production generates more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector. However, this claim is demonstrably wrong, as I will show. And its persistence has led to false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate change.



Okay, and the basis for his criticism;

Quote:
Why the misconception? In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a study titled "Livestock's Long Shadow," which received widespread international attention. It stated that livestock produced a staggering 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

The agency drew a startling conclusion: Livestock was doing more to harm the climate than all modes of transportation combined.



Quote:
This latter claim was wrong, and has since been corrected by Henning Steinfeld, the report's senior author. The problem was that FAO analysts used a comprehensive life-cycle assessment to study the climate impact of livestock, but a different method when they analyzed transportation.
For livestock, they considered every factor associated with producing meat. This included emissions from fertilizer production, converting land from forests to pastures, growing feed, and direct emissions from animals (belching and manure) from birth to death.

However, when they looked at transportation's carbon footprint, they ignored impacts on the climate from manufacturing vehicle materials and parts, assembling vehicles and maintaining roads, bridges, and airports.

Instead, they only considered the exhaust emitted by finished cars, trucks, trains, and planes. As a result, the FAO's comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock to those from transportation was greatly distorted.


Quote:
Instead, they only considered the exhaust emitted by finished cars, trucks, trains, and planes. As a result, the FAO's comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock to those from transportation was greatly distorted.


Here the author loses me somewhat. The comparison is distorted. The actual contribution of meat production to greenhouse emissions is not.


Quote:
In its most recent assessment report, the FAO estimated that livestock produces 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. There is no comparable full life-cycle assessment for transportation.

However, as Steinfeld has pointed out, direct emissions from transportation versus livestock can be compared and amount to 14 versus 5%, respectively.


What, livestock only 5 percent? Fair comparison is one thing--fair attribution of greenhouse gas emissions to a sector is another. I don't see the problem here as being the contribution of meat to greenhouse gases is inflated--but more the underestimation of contribution from transport. Everything involved in getting beef to my table is still a genuine contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Dec-12-18, 12:55
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,352
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/217/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Quote:
Everything involved in getting beef to my table is still a genuine contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

This can be said of everything we " consume" from food to goods.

I would like to know if the original population of buffalo, the herds that took 2-3 days to finish crossing the railroads tracks made as much or more than the current cattle production? And does the cattle production make up for the loss of the thousands and thousands of white tail deer that used to roam the entire northeast???

And at what point will human " emissions" be added to the equation?

Maybe the real answer is to stop the population explosion.
AND to increase the foliage to absorb the waste gases......instead of continuing to strip the land of trees. Instead of burning crop residue, mulch it.

Lot to be said for grassfed meats.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Dec-12-18, 13:19
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,459
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

If we switch to all grassfed beef, I'm not sure I get any.

If you lined up all today's cattle and marched them across that railway track, I'm pretty sure that would take quite a while. In the same way that the land supports more humans through agriculture than it could with hunter gathering, it also supports more cattle. Grain feed is a part of that.


Quote:
Alberta’s beef cattle inventories rose 1.3% from 2011 to 3.34 million head


That's Alberta. I'd bet Texas has a few more.


Quote:
Texas Cattle Breeds
Estimated at 10.9 million, Texas has the largest population of cattle in the United States.



Quote:
As I research bison history, which I located from ... The hides were the greatest feature, and one firm in New York between 1876 and 1884 paid the killers ... From 1872 to 1874 there were 1,780,461 buffaloes killed and wasted ...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:57.


Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.