Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
who will have considerable difficulty locating Calverd's study, that this is a one page opin-
ion piece written by an author whose mugshot shows him playing the euphonium.
G&A do not stop there but continue with an unprecedented tirade of blame heaped
against the animal kingdom. Livestock, they claim, are responsible for 32,564 million
tonnes of CO
2
eq, more than four times as much as the 7516 tonnes calculated by the FAO.
This would bump the FAO's figure of 18 per cent up to 80 per cent of the total of 40 billion
tonnes of greenhouse gases which the FAO and the World Resources Institute estimate are
attributable to human activity. Eighty per cent is a bit hard to swallow, but G&A also argue
that the figure for anthropogenic GHGs should be increased from 40 billion tonnes to 63.9
billion tonnes, with the result that livestock represent a more modest 51 per cent of anthro-
pogenic GHGs. This proportion conveniently allows them to argue that domestic animals
account for 'at least half of all human-caused GHGs' and therefore that replacing livestock
products with alternatives would be 'the best strategy', since it would have 'far more rapid
effects … than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy'. Not only are cows
worse than cars, but fauna causes more damage than fossil fuels.
Aside from respiration, G&A provide two other main reasons why they consider the
FAO's 18 per cent to be a severe underestimate. Like Peter Singer and his colleagues, they
argue that the Global Warming Potential of methane should be increased from 25 to 72,
with the result that by a stroke of the pen livestock methane emissions are tripled, and be-
come a more prominent target than fossil fuels. As I have already pointed out, targeting
methane in this way may be the most effective strategy in an emergency, but it involves
scapegoating methane emitters to compensate for our failure to address the long-term ef-
fects of fossil fuels.
The third factor which bumps up the livestock GHG tally by a further 2.6 billion tonnes
is one that I have also touched on in the discussion on
Livestock's Long Shadow
under the
heading 'carbon sinks forgone'. The 26 per cent of land worldwide used for grazing, to-
gether with the 33 per cent of arable land used for feed crops, could, G&A argue, be more
effectively used as a carbon sink by being converted back to forest, or alternatively used
to reduce fossil fuel emissions by growing biofuels. No doubt in many cases, particularly
in respect of animal feed crops, G&A are right; but to assign a greenhouse gas penalty to
these putative carbon sinks and add that to the toll of actual emissions attributed to live-
stock leads to statistical confusion. If theoretical GHG emissions are to be assigned to graz-
ing and feedcrop land on the grounds that it could be covered in trees or biofuel crops, then
even more non-existent emissions should be assigned to the 67 per cent of arable land upon
which we grow food for humans, not to mention all the land taken up by houses, roads
and other infrastructure. On top of that there is uncertainty about what levels of carbon se-
questration can be achieved, and disagreement as to whether or not grazing land can be an
effective sink for soil carbon - a matter I cover in the next chapter.
