Animal Agriculture Is The Leading Cause Of Climate Change

Abstract

In this paper, we present the results of a Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA) proving that animal agriculture is the leading cause of climate change, responsible for at least 87% of greenhouse gas emissions annually. The burning of fossil fuels is currently the leading source of human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However, climate change is caused by cumulative human-made greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions and not just current CO2 emissions alone. While humans have been burning fossil fuels for a little over 200 years, we have been burning down forests for animal agriculture for well over 8,000 years. For the GSA analysis, we use factual data from the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other peer-reviewed scientific sources. We show that we need to transition to a global plant-based economy first and that blindly eliminating fossil fuel usage first will accelerate the warming of the planet. We show that the annual methane emissions from animal agriculture alone cause more incremental global warming than the annual CO2 emissions from all fossil fuel sources combined. We further show that the transition to a global plant-based economy has the potential to sequester over 2000 Giga tons (Gt) of CO2 in regenerating soils and vegetation, returning atmospheric greenhouse gas levels to the “safe zone” of under 350 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 equivalent, while restoring the biodiversity of the planet and healing its climate. This paper clearly illustrates why the scientific community, government institutions, corporations and news media, who vastly underestimate the role of animal agriculture and focus primarily on reducing fossil fuel use, need to urgently change their priorities in order to be effective.

Generated Summary

This paper presents a Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA) to demonstrate that animal agriculture is the leading cause of climate change, responsible for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions. The research employs data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and peer-reviewed scientific sources to compare the impact of animal agriculture with that of fossil fuels. The analysis highlights the necessity of transitioning to a global plant-based economy as a primary step in climate mitigation, arguing that focusing solely on reducing fossil fuel use may inadvertently accelerate global warming. The study underscores the role of cumulative human-made emissions, emphasizing the long-term impact of land-use changes, particularly those related to animal agriculture, compared to the more recent history of fossil fuel burning. The methodology involves analyzing the Earth’s carbon cycle, the impact of human activities, and the potential of plant-based economies for carbon sequestration and climate restoration. It aims to illustrate the critical need for the scientific community, governments, and corporations to prioritize addressing the impacts of animal agriculture in climate change strategies.

Key Findings & Statistics

Animal agriculture is responsible for at least 87% of annual greenhouse gas emissions.
The burning of fossil fuels is the leading source of human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Humans have been burning fossil fuels for a little over 200 years, but have been burning down forests for animal agriculture for well over 8,000 years.
The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC estimates the mean radiative forcing of human-made CO2 to be 1.68 Watts/square meter (W/m2).
Methane has a mean radiative forcing of 0.97 W/m2.
The annual methane emissions from animal agriculture alone cause more incremental global warming than the annual CO2 emissions from all fossil fuel sources combined.
The transition to a global plant-based economy has the potential to sequester over 2000 Giga tons (Gt) of CO2 in regenerating soils and vegetation.
The UN FAO’s estimate is that lifecycle emissions of animal agriculture is a mere 14.5% of global human-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The correct estimate is at least 51% as calculated by Goodland and Anhang, and the lower bound can be tightened to at least 87%.
The annual emissions of methane from 2011-2016 was 0.363 Gt, on average.
If the GWP of 130 is used for methane, then the annual emissions of methane would be 46.9 Gt CO2e, which exceeds the annual emissions of CO2 (39 Gt CO2).
The impact of methane from animal agriculture alone is 37% of 46.9 Gt CO2e, which works out to 17.3 Gt CO2e.
This exceeds the impact of all fossil fuel based CO2 emissions, which is 87% of 17.6 Gt Co2, which works out to 15.3 Gt CO2.
The amount of methane that has accumulated in the atmosphere since 1750 until 2011 is 1.1ppm, which corresponds to 3.12 Gt of methane.
The amount of CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere since 1750 until 2011 is 110ppm, which corresponds to 859 Gt of CO2.
In 1850, land use changes were the main source of human-made CO2 emissions, while at present, it is fossil fuels.
Kaplan et al. has estimated the CO2 emissions due to land use changes in the pre-industrial era to be 1250 Gt CO2.
CO2 emissions from land-use changes is 1850 Gt CO2, which exceeds the CO2 emissions from all fossil fuel sources combined of 1200 Gt CO2.
The biomass of wild animals had declined by 52% from 1970 levels and therefore down by 81% from 10K years ago.
The decline in the biomass of wild animals was also accelerating exponentially to be 58% from 1970 levels by 2012 and 60% by 2014.
In terms of dry matter biomass, farmed animals consume more than 80% of the food that we extract from the planet.
Plant-based foods provide 82% of the calories and 63% of the protein that we consume.
The “Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use” (AFOLU) sector was responsible for 12 Gt CO2e or 24% of the global greenhouse gas emissions by industry sector.
Fossil fuel burning was calculated to produce 32 Gt of CO2 or 65% of the total greenhouse gas emissions (49 Gt CO2e) in 2010.
Alan Calverd, an independent physicist, published an estimate of GHG emissions from “Livestock” breathing alone is 8.8 Gt CO2e or 21% of total.
FAO published Livestock’s Long Shadow (LLS) calculating lifecycle emissions from the “Livestock” sector to be 7.5 Gt CO2e or 18% of total.
Goodland and Anhang, two Environmental Assessment (EA) specialists with the World Bank, published the WorldWatch report correcting errors in LLS and calculating lifecycle emissions of the “Livestock” sector to be 32.6 Gt CO2e or 51% of total.
In 2010, the true lifecycle emissions of animal agriculture is at least 55.6 Gt CO2e in 2010, i.e., 87% of the total.
In the Clean Energy Economy scenario, the net radiative forcing would increase to 3.24 W/m2.
In the Plant Based Economy scenario, the net radiative forcing is expected to decrease to 1.3-1.7 W/m2 within 10-12 years.
In the Clean Energy Economy, a total shutdown would result in a net increase in radiative forcing of 0.901 W/m2 annually.
In the Plant Based Economy scenario would result in a net decrease in radiative forcing of 0.104 W/m2 annually.
Grazing lands store just 6% of the carbon per unit area when compared to the average for all land.
If grazing land is reverted to native forests, the carbon storage on land would increase by 265 GtC from its present value.

Other Important Findings

The burning of fossil fuels is undoubtedly the leading source of human-made Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions today.
CO2 is the most powerful human-made greenhouse gas in terms of its radiative forcing.
The next most significant human-made exhaust gas is methane.
The number one cause of methane emissions is animal agriculture, which contributes 37% of it.
Even though the radiative forcing of methane is less than that of CO2, the annual emissions of methane has a more significant impact on net radiative forcing.
The GWP of methane over a 10 year time horizon, including cloud effects, is 130.
The biomass of wild animals had declined by 52% from 1970 levels.
Human biomass was negligible compared to the biomass of “megafauna” 10,000 years ago.
In the industrial era, by 1970, human biomass alone was equal to the biomass of all megafauna.
The primary driver for this decline is human land clearing for agriculture, since 80% of mass extinction is due to habitat loss.
Plant-based foods comprise 85% of the food we eat, in terms of dry weight.
The UN FAO has calculated the COC of animal agriculture, i.e., the carbon sequestration that will occur annually if the products of animal agriculture are replaced with plant-based alternatives, to be precisely ZERO.
Land use changes, primarily for agriculture, is the leading cause of CO2 emissions, a global heating component with the largest radiative forcing.
Animal agriculture is the leading cause of methane emissions, the global heating component contributing the most incremental heating on an annual basis.
Fossil fuel burning is the leading cause of sulphate emissions, a global cooling component.
In the Clean Energy Economy scenario, land use change emissions would continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere.
In the Plant Based Economy scenario, we can start gradually switching out the fossil fuel infrastructure for clean energy sources without exacerbating catastrophic climate feedback loops.
The optimum strategy to shut down these two machines without increasing the net radiative forcing is to first shut down the killing machine as soon as possible and then shut down 0.104/0.901 = 11.5% of the Burning machine every year for the next 9 years.

Limitations Noted in the Document

The paper does not explicitly state any limitations of the study in the text, except for the fact that the IPCC is using a 100-year timeframe for calculating the CO2 equivalence of methane, which undercounts its more relevant 10-year impact by nearly a factor of 5.
The paper also mentions that if they include the underlying uncertainty ranges and other nuances, they will likely lose clarity in their presentation.
The IPCC is allocating each molecule of emission to one sector alone, and the emissions are being assigned to the transportation sector and not to the AFOLU sector.
The UN IPCC is relying on the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) for its AFOLU data, while the FAO has publicly partnered with the International Meat Secretariat and the International Dairy Federation.
The IPCC has consistently undercounted the impact of our annual methane emissions by averaging its impact over a 100-year period.

Conclusion

The central argument of this paper is that animal agriculture is the leading cause of climate change and that shifting to a plant-based economy is a critical step toward mitigating its effects. The analysis provides a compelling case for reevaluating current climate change strategies that primarily focus on reducing fossil fuel emissions while underestimating the impact of animal agriculture. The paper uses a GSA method to challenge the UN FAO’s estimates and demonstrates that the impact of animal agriculture is far greater than previously acknowledged, estimating that it accounts for at least 87% of annual greenhouse gas emissions. The study’s emphasis on cumulative emissions and radiative forcing highlights the long-term consequences of land-use changes, particularly those driven by animal agriculture, making it the primary driver of human-made CO2 emissions over time. Furthermore, the paper advocates for a shift towards a plant-based economy, highlighting its potential to sequester significant amounts of CO2 and restore atmospheric greenhouse gas levels to a safe zone. The analysis stresses the importance of reforesting grazing lands, which currently store very little carbon compared to the average for all land. The findings indicate that focusing on a plant-based economy offers a more immediate and effective path to climate change mitigation than solely reducing fossil fuel consumption. The paper concludes that a total shutdown of the killing machine (animal agriculture) followed by a reduction in the burning machine (fossil fuel) is the optimal strategy for reducing radiative forcing and achieving climate goals. The research emphasizes the need for immediate action from the scientific community, governments, corporations, and the media to address animal agriculture’s role in climate change, calling for a reordering of priorities to effectively combat global warming. The ultimate goal is to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

IFFS Team Summary

https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.54081/JES.027/13
Recently peer reviewed – but no DOI assigned or in a high quality journal
Broad overview of GHG, fossil fuels, land use change and other effects on climate
Makes great points also shown by Tim Searchinger in https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0757-z related to the need to measure land-use change
Makes a case for measuring methane on a 10 year scale, because the IPCC has stated there needs to be significant changes to emissions before 2030.
Looks at total historical output of all the above, including the total deforestation and land use change by humans since prehistoric times, since much of the earth has been deforested over the millennia, and grazing animals has been a primary case
Note that this article needs review from climate scientists, especially for these important concepts and conclusions:
- Compares the relative impact of methane, when the per year impact is counted over 10 years vs 100 years
- Important since Animal Agriculture is responsible for 37% of methane
- Does not change the denominator based on a carbon opportunity cost far outside of consensus too
Discusses the recalculation of CO2 emissions claiming 55% is overcounted due to the Airborne effect, and carbon sequestration at any one-time.
Conclusion that livestock contributes 87% of GHG impact
- Requires much more research from peer reviewed sources to conclude that and some clear errors made
Paper rightfully critiques the partnership and influence of meat industry on UN FAO papers after Livestock Long Shadow:
- FAO Yields to Meat Industry Pressure on Climate Change – by Robert Goodland:
- https://bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/fao-yields-to-meat-industry-pressure-on-climate-change/
- States that FAO “partnered with International Meat Secretariat and International Dairy Federation”
- Subsequent recalculation of Livestock impact reduced to 14.5% reduced from 18%
Industry favoured “intensification” as a strategy to reduce climate impact of animal agriculture
Overall paper reviews many basic principles and raises important questions
Many figures are regarding land use change are appropriately reviewed from UN sources and journals
However, we need further review and expertise before accepting the extreme outlier number of 87% GHG from animal agriculture, and the recalculation of CO2 process