The second tweet is citing the 2017 Guardian article “100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says - A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change.”
If the 80,000 people who reblogged this uncritically bothered to read their sources carefully and then take out a calculator they would find out that the meat industry is responsible for as many GHG emissions as 70 of these companies combined.
You go from number 34 (Qatar Petroleum Corp - 0.54%) all the way down to number 100 (Southwestern Energy Co - 0.04%) and you get 14,5%*, which is the percentage of GHG emissions animal agriculture is responsible for.
*14.5% is if you don’t count the consumption of fossil fuel along the sector supply chains - it obviously doesn’t make sense to count it since that fossil fuel is produced by the companies listed in the article, so it’s already included in the 71% figure reported above.
To be more precise, the livestock sector accounts for 14,5% percent of GHG emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.
Between 2010 and 2050, as a result of rising demand, these shares could increase by 50–90%: the environmental impacts of the food system will exceed the planetary boundaries for food-related GHG emissions by 110%, for cropland use by 70%, for bluewater use by 50%, for nitrogen application by 125%, and for phosphorus application by 75%. Some estimates suggest that meeting projected demands for livestock products alone will exceed the sustainability boundary condition for reactive nitrogen mobilization by 294%. This means the livestock sector alone will significantly overshoot recently published estimates of humanity’s “safe operating space”.
if we want to look at the issue from another perspective: to avoid dangerous climate change, global yearly emissions must fall rapidly from today’s levels of 49 GtCO2 e to around 23 GtCO2 e by 2050. If meat and dairy consumption continues to rise at current rates, the agricultural sector alone will soak up 20 of the 23 gtco2 e yearly limit in 2050, leaving just 3 gtco2 e for the rest of the global economy. Even under the most ambitious of decarbonization scenarios, it will be near impossible for emissions from other sectors to drop to such levels by the middle of the century.
We could stop using all fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy today and even then, even if every single one of these 100 fucking companies were burned to the ground, we would still exceed the 1.5°C limit, just from raising animals for food.
Barring unforseen technological breakthroughs worldwide animal product consumption at current North American per capita rates is utterly incompatible with a 1.5°C warming target.
In addition to its effects on greenhouse gases, animal agriculture affects the environment by the conversion of natural ecosystems to agriculture since, obviously, growing the crops used for feeding animals, such as soy and maize, eats up land. 26 percent of the earth’s terrestrial surface is used for livestock grazing. One-third of the planet’s arable land is occupied by livestock feed crop cultivation. 40% of our cereal production is not destined for human consumption, but for animal feed. So is 80% of Amazon soy.
Land use and habitat conversion are, in essence, a zero-sum game: land converted to agriculture to meet growing food demand comes from forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats. Consequently, cattle ranching is the largest driver of deforestation, accounting for 80% of current deforestation rates in South America. Seventy percent of Brazil’s deforested land is now used as pasture, with feed crop cultivation occupying much of the remainder.
These numbers are, of course, the result of today’s meat consumption levels: If developing countries were to eat as much meat as developed countries per capita, the amount of agricultural land required worldwide would be about two thirds larger than today.
If any of the 80,000 people who agree with this post and think it is journalistic malpractice to encourage a reduction in meat consumption could enlight me as to where they plan on finding all this land without worsening deforestation, land degradation, and habitat loss, it is more pressing now than ever that they come forward with their ideas. Especially in light of the new UN report warning that “We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe”. From the Guardian:
1) The IPCC maps out four pathways to achieve 1.5C, with different combinations of land use and technological change. Reforestation is essential to all of them as are shifts to electric transport systems and greater adoption of carbon capture technology. 2) Although unexpectedly good progress has been made in the adoption of renewable energy, deforestation for agriculture was turning a natural carbon sink into a source of emissions. […] Reversing these trends is essential if the world has any chance of reaching 1.5C without relying on the untried technology of solar radiation modification and other forms of geo-engineering, which could have negative consequences.
To raise livestock also takes water: nearly one-third of the total water footprint of agriculture in the world is related to the production of animal products. The water footprint of a live animal consists of different components: the indirect water footprint of the feed and the direct water footprint related to the drinking water and service water consumed (service water refers to the water used to clean the farmyard, wash the animal and carry out other services necessary to maintain the environment). In Italy, for example, about 89% of our water footprint relates to consumption of agricultural products and 7% to industrial products. Nearly, half of the water footprint of Italian consumption is related to the consumption of animal products.
An important distinction must be made here between water “use” and “consumption”. Hydroelectric power is one of the largest “users” of water in the USA, but actually consumes very little water. The water is used to power turbines or for cooling and is almost always returned to the source immediately. Agriculture is the largest “consumer” of water because it pulls water from the source and locks it up in products, not returning it to the source immediately, if ever.
Fishing also affects ecological processes at very large scale. The overall impact on aquatic systems has been described as comparable to that of agriculture on land. In fact, with the rise of commercial fishing methods marine animal populations are no longer able to replenish themselves fast enough. Between the 1950’s to 2011 worldwide catches increased 5 fold while the amount of fish in the sea was reduced by ½. Some scientists predict that we will see fishless oceans by 2048.
The most obvious reason for the reduction of marine life is overfishing. 90-100 million tonnes of fish are pulled from our oceans each year, with some sources even estimating 150 million tonnes. ¾ of the world’s fisheries are exploited or depleted. But it’s not just the amount of fish being taken from the ocean for food that is the issue. there is also the method of species targeting. Humans tend to go after the biggest fish first until they are no longer available. Then they move on down the chain, a process marine biologist Daniel Pauly termed “fishing down marine food webs”. Over the last 50 years, the abundance of large predator fish, such as cod, swordfish and tuna, has dropped 90 percent. Fishing vessels now increasingly pursue the smaller forage fish, such as herrings, sardines, menhaden and anchovies, that are lower on the food chain. The removal of apex predators leads to what’s called “trophic downgrading” where the loss of predators allows other species to grow unimpeded, upsetting the entire ecosystem. One study suggests that the removal of sharks may contribute to climate change by leaving the unchecked numbers of species to feast on the ocean’s vegetation, releasing the ancient carbon found there in massive quantities. Dr. Peter Macreadie, one of the study’s authors, cautioned that “If we just lost 1 percent of the oceans’ blue carbon ecosystems, it would be equivalent to releasing 460 million tonnes of carbon annually, which is about the equivalent of about 97 million cars. It’s about equivalent to Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.” With 73 million sharks killed every year for the shark fin industry and 40-50 million sharks dying every year as bycatch*, this is more than mere speculation.
* bycatch is a fish or other marine species that is caught unintentionally while catching certain target species and target sizes of fish, crabs etc. According to the FAO, for every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as bycatch.
Even marine plastic is in large part a fishing issue. It turns out that 46 percent of the Great Pacific garbage patch is composed of discarded nets, and much of the rest consists of other kinds of fishing gear. To put this in perspective, things like plastic straws - which everyone seems so eager to eliminate - make up 0.03% of all marine plastic.
All these sources of global change will rival and significantly interact with climatic change in environmental and societal impacts.
(sources)
Now, before anyone can misconstrue my argument, I 100% agree with the sentiment of that tweet. Our entire economic system needs to be turned upside down. Drastic changes - chief among them the discontinuation of the use of fossil fuels - are needed on an institutional level.
What’s my problem then, you might ask. It’s this: while that twitter guy and I might disagree on the importance of individuals taking the bus instead of driving, we both obviously acknowledge that the fossil fuels that power our cars are unsustainable. And I don’t have to wonder whether or not he would support further investments in public transport. I know he would.
When it comes to animal products, though, I can never be so sure.
If I listen to what you’re saying, then it seems like you take issue with my telling individual consumers to eat less meat because you want to go straight to the government and after the corporations. You’d rather we demanded subsidies for plant-based foods, and policies that restrict the supply of animal products, and more investments in plant-based companies and lab-grown meat, perhaps even changes to school and workplace menus. In other words, you’d rather we didn’t hold individual consumers responsible for failing to eat plant-based but instead hold the government responsible for making delicious and nutritious plant-based food as available and convenient to the average consumer as junk food is today.
If that were your actual position, I’d be crying tears of joy. But you see, I’m not at all convinced that it is. ‘Cause your words are never backed up by actions.
If the biggest left-wing party in my country listed “restricting the supply of animal products” as one of their objectives, do not insult me by telling me that non-vegan “anti-capitalists” would vote for it. I know you wouldn’t, you know you wouldn’t, politicians know you wouldn’t. That’s why reducing meat consumption is not part of any political party’s objectives and it is never going to be unless this issue becomes a deal-breaker for the majority of their voters.
That’s who consciousness raising need to start with, individual voters. Most voters are aware of the unsustainability of fossil fuels and would support reforms to reduce their use - perhaps grudgingly, but they would support them. The same cannot be said for animal products. The average citizen - even the average “anti-capitalist” - would not accept the government meddling with their diet. Corporations, powerful though they are, are not the only thing standing in the way, since as long as most voters oppose a reform, there is no chance of it ever becoming law. Suggesting that we should back off individual consumers and go straight after giant corporations is completely out of touch with reality because it ignores this simple fact.
Furthermore, you may tweet about the futility of individual consumers taking the bus, but you then follow that up by letting politicians know that you want them to take care of electric cars and public transport. Do not tell me that non-vegan anti-capitalists are known for letting politicians know how concerned they are about animal agriculture.
You don’t want us to leave you alone and go after corporations. You want us to leave you alone period. Most of you want to leave the livestock sector completely untouched and out of the discussion.
That’s not possible. A global shift toward a plant-based diet is part of the institutional changes that need to take place to stop climate change. It’s not a nice little addition that we can survive without. It is an integral part of any serious climate change mitigation plan.
This isn’t my opinion. It isn’t neoliberal propaganda. There is scientific consensus on this. In fact, there is not much difference between being a climate change denier and denying the role of animal agriculture in climate change.
How come one study is all it takes to convince you that 100 companies are destroying the planet, but no number of studies is enough to convince that the livestock sector also plays a role??
"In other words, the study concluded that 100 companies produced 71% of the fossil fuels which are then used by other industries and by consumers. 100 companies aren’t causing 71% of emissions, they’re producing 71% of fossil fuels. Those are completely different things. These calculations also specifically excluded agricultural emissions, which is awfully convenient for any farmer and is precisely why this study was so widely shared by them. Likewise, people were so ready to believe what the media and industries like animal agriculture said about this study because it told them exactly what they wanted to hear, which is that we as consumers bare no responsibility for climate change and therefore we as individuals don’t need to do anything.
This kind of rhetoric is not only completely inaccurate, it’s outright dangerous, and it completely plays into the hands of those who benefit most from our complete lack of individual and collective action on our climate crisis. That people are still using this complete lie to respond to what are demonstrably effective ways for an individual to reduce their own environmental footprint is utterly depressing. Those with a vested interest in not fighting climate change will use studies like this gleefully to reassure you that no, you aren’t personally responsible for the demand you create, you don’t need to make any personal changes and you certainly don’t need to stop supporting the industries which they represent. As always, if a claim sounds too convenient to be true, it probably is."
