Green Services Direct

As we travel through the green rolling hills of our countryside, we can’t help but admire the cattle and sheep which graze in the fields as we pass. We particularly enjoy watching the spring lambs gambol around the fields or the little calves chasing their mothers for feeding. It seems a shame that these animals in such an idyllic setting are emitting methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas, even as we admire them. Cows, sheep, pigs and even chickens are all, either directly or indirectly, substantial contributors to global warming.

The farming of animals for human consumption is the second largest contributor to human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions after fossil fuels accounting for around 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Farm livestock in Europe, including the production of their feed, produces more greenhouse gases per annum than all of Europe’s cars and vans put together. Livestock emissions account for somewhere between 14 and 18 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. The transportation sector, by comparison, is responsible for around 14 percent of global emissions. Also worth noting is that while burning fossil fuels in our vehicles creates CO2, livestock farming is mostly responsible for producing methane which is almost 25 times more damaging as a greenhouse gas.

In comparison to the airtime being given to the harmful effects of driving diesel or petrol vehicles, there is little understanding of the effects of farming livestock for human consumption, either directly or indirectly on climate change. The direct effect is the emission of methane and nitrous oxide from the animals, but there are other indirect ways in which the farming of animals for human consumption is harmful to our planet.

The industry is also one of the leading causes of deforestation as we struggle to find sufficient grazing land for our meat producing animals. The second biggest factor in tropical deforestation is soybean production, which has increased more than fifteen fold since the 1950s. Beef and soybean production are driving more than two-thirds of the recorded deforestation in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay.  Demand for soy is closely linked to our demand for edible meats. Around 75% of all soy produced is used for livestock feed, not only for beef but for chickens, pigs, and farmed fish. In South America alone the land used for growing soybean has more than doubled in the last 20 years to a staggering 110 million acres. This expansion has occurred to satisfy the world’s present population of 8.0 billion. This is expected to reach 8.6 billion in 2030 and possibly exceed 11 billion by the end of the century, a rise of almost 70%. Does this mean then that we should expect to see an equivalent grown in deforestation to accommodate this growth in demand?

The trees we have in our forests absorb carbon dioxide through their leaves, converting this into carbohydrates, which enables them to grow and the retained converted carbon dioxide will remain within that tree as long as it stands. The more trees there are in the forest, the more carbon dioxide that forest will store and conversely the less will be released into the atmosphere as a harmful greenhouse gas. To further reduce our forests to the extent suggested by the above figures would be an environmental disaster.

The alternative to farming and feeding more animals to feed an ever growing population is for each of us to eat less meat. Meat production is less efficient than agriculture. It takes roughly 20 times more acreage to produce the same number of calories from meat as it does from plants, so regardless of any other factors we would require less land to feed ourselves on a mainly plant based diet. Surely that alone would allow us to stop the wilful destruction of thousands of acres of carbon hoarding trees.

Sustainable, more humane farming methods may help the farmer and possibly improve life for the animals, but they will do very little for the environment as they will not cut down the methane produced by the animals. Add to that the fact that vegan and vegetarian dishes are more available in restaurants and supermarkets and recipes from the internet as well as magazines and cookery books are now much more available, as well as being very tasty and it would seem that maybe we could all benefit the planet without  breaking the bank for an electric car.

So is the cow more deadly than the car? Should we be breeding fewer animals rather than driving fewer petrol or diesel vehicles?

A plant based diet is something which we can all decide on now and if we are careful to get all the proteins and vitamins we need, we could also be adopting a healthier eating regime. We don’t necessarily need to stop eating dairy or meat products, but if we all cut down on our consumption of these it would have an effect on our environment 

Governments have for some time now been trying to persuade us to move from petrol or diesel fuelled vehicles to more environmentally friendly electric ones, even bringing in legislation to stop the sale of new petrol and diesel cars after 2030. New build homes will be hit by a government ban on gas boilers after 2025. However, if the farming of meat products is equally damaging to the environment, why have no moves been made to ban the eating of steak pies or beef burgers?

Consuming less meat is also one of the few ways of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases that actually costs the consumer less money than the alternative. Installing solar panels domestically can cost five figure sums of money. Installing a heat pump can be even more of a cash outlay. In the long term these measures will give a financial payback but many people would not be able to afford the initial outlay. New, fuel efficient, electric vehicles are also expensive, with many of them almost 40% more expensive than their petrol counterpart.

Eating less meat means we can potentially save money on the family budget and there’s no installation cost, all it would take would be a commitment and it’s something that we can all do.