Two World Bank environmental advisors Robert Goddard and Jeff Anhang put out a report claiming eating meat was having far more of an impact on global warming than was officially recognised. They argue that instead of producing 18% of world emissions it is actually 51%.
They are idiots so I won’t analyse it all but amongst other things they want to add animal respiration to our livestock emissions. This is the CO2 animals breathe out. This is not currently treated as an emission because it is regarded as neutral because it is just returning carbon that was removed from the atmosphere by the growing grass. There is no net increase and at least in this part of things the global warming industry has recognised this fairly sound and basic science.
But now it seems this may change because Robert and Jeff from the World Bank are arguing that without the animal there this carbon would not be respired and so the emission should count. According to them this equates to a massive 8.7 billion tonnes and is 3.7 per cent of total emissions.
They don’t realise though that if the animal was not there the grass would die and rot away and the carbon would return to the atmosphere. Presumably you need a brain to work for the World Bank but they somehow got around this requirement.
My first reaction was to dismiss them outright because of the stupidity of their argument and it saddened me that any study or report that paints agriculture in a bad light is eagerly rounded up by our news media and regurgitated without any checks on the intelligence of the authors.
But then I realised that I may have been too harsh on them because their fundamental argument over this carbon dioxide is the same as our Governments argument over enteric methane. These two advisors argue the emission of carbon dioxide is causing global warming despite the fact that the carbon emitted is offset by the carbon sequestered by the grass. Our Government argue that enteric methane causes global warming despite the fact that the methane emitted is offset by the methane that oxidises back to carbon dioxide.
So I have to concede that relative to our Government and its advisors these two from the World Bank are no more stupid.
Worldwatcher says
In my experience at the World Bank, no employee is allowed to say “I won’t analyse it all” as does Robin Grieve. Analysing it all shows that in fact, Robert Goodland (yes Robin Grieve mispelled his name) and Jeff Anhang got it right.
Less than 10% of meat is or likely ever could be produced by grazing alone. The rest requires many pounds of crops per pound of human-consumed product. The majority of livestock who do graze are in tropical regions, where pasture is created by destroying forest and releasing large amounts of carbon. Then the soil becomes very degraded in only a few years, again releasing large amounts of carbon. Even in temperate climates, grazed pasture tends to degrade over time and release large amounts of carbon.
If pasture were not grazed, in most places it could regenerate forest. Everywhere else, without being grazed, grass could keep growing higher and keep absorbing more carbon. When it would die, most of its carbon would become sequestered in the earth beneath, not released to the atmosphere as Robin Grieve proposes — and as it surely does when chewed up by livestock directly or via feedcrops.
Robin Grieve says
Thanks for your comments and welcome to the site. The site is dedicated to demonstrating that enteric methane in particular and other agricultural emissions do not contribute to global warming. The point you miss in your comment is that in order for an activity to contribute to global warming it has to increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas. An animal breathing out can not do this because the CO2 is offset by the CO2 sequestered by the grass. There is no increase in CO2 as a result so no global warming. So no they did not get it right at all. I may have been a bit harsh calling them idiots because it is a common mistake they make. A lot of people confuse an activity that only maintains current levels of a greenhouse gas ie, respiration and enteric methane with an activity that does increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas such as the burning of a fossl fuel.
In response to your comments about the grass, you are at odds with the IPCC and the NZ Inventory here. Carbon in any grass which is not eaten is regarded as returning to the atmosphere. As is the carbon in dung.
In any case your argument is not sound because you are saying that the animal eats the grass and therefore prevents it locking up more carbon in the soil. All you are saying here is that without the animal more carbon would be locked away. What you are blaming the animal for here is not global warming but maintaining current levels.of CO2 and not letting them decrease. It is the same argument as saying your house is taking up the space of ten trees which could lock up carbon so by living in a house you are causing global warming. I think that is a silly argument.
I think if you go through my posts on the site, particularly those about global warming potentials you will see that I have addressed everything these two said as reported in the article and it is all done with analysis.