Although previous studies
have quantified carbon dioxide emissions embodied in products traded
internationally, there has been limited attention to other greenhouse gases
such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
Recently, an international
team of researchers has estimated the amount of methane and nitrous oxide that
countries release into the atmosphere when producing meat from livestock, and
assigned the emissions to the countries where the meat is ultimately consumed.
They found that embodied, or
"hidden," emissions in beef, chicken and pork have increased by 19%
over the past 20 years, and that there is currently a global instability caused
by a large number of countries contributing to the production of emissions in
another country.
Global emissions of CH4
and N2O account for approximately 27.7% of total radiative forcing since the
pre-industrial era, and, in 2001, livestock accounted for 25% of this. Thus,
direct emissions of CH4 and N2O from livestock worldwide represent
approximately 9% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
In their study, the
researchers, from the Carnegie Institution for Science, the University of Siena
and University of California (Irvine), analyzed data from 237 countries and
found that between 1990 and 2010, 36.1 Mt of CO2-equivalent (CO2-eq) emissions
were related to meat produced in one country and consumed in a different
country.
 |
|
Trends of global non-CO2 emissions (Mtons of CO2-eq)
embodied in traded beef (A), pork (B) and chicken (C) (right axis,
red) compared with total beef, pork and chicken emissions (left axis,
blue) during the period 1990–2010.
|
The largest amount of
embodied emissions was from beef (26.7 Mt of CO2-eq), pork (7.3 Mt of CO2-eq)
and chicken (2.1 Mt of CO2-eq) respectively.
In Europe, meat exported
from France to Italy and Greece embodied 1.4 Mt and 1.2 Mt of CO2-eq emissions
respectively, and Italian imports of meat from Poland, Germany and Netherlands
embodied 0.7, 0.6, and 0.7 Mt of CO2-eq emissions, respectively.
To sum up, I think science
daily did a good job in introducing and summarizing a research result. Actually,
this article is ‘based on’ materials provided by Institute of Physics (IOP).
Which means sciencedaily just totally referenced a short summary from IOP and
added a short summary. But since
sciencedaily article successfully attracted readers to pay attention to a
significant environmental issue and referenced its original source properly, I
still consider this article a good and clear science article that is suitable
for public media.
Sciencedaily article:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141113195152.htm
Original Paper:http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/114005/
I thought that it was interesting how the greenhouse emissions are assessed to the country buying the meat and not the country producing the animals. I suppose it makes sense because the importing country is the reason why the meat is being produced. However, the only way for the importing country to reduce emissions would be to cut back on consumption. Any actual regulations on the raising/processing side would need to be made in the exporting nations.
ReplyDeleteYes that's why I find this research interesting.But I guess that for every country, cutting back on meat consumption is quite unrealistic.
DeleteIt amazes me how much meat consumption has gone up in the past decades. The increase is likely partially due to meat consumption being a luxury that many more can afford and choose to partake in and the fast food industry indiscriminately promoting high caloric intake meals.
ReplyDeleteThe data clearly reflects the case of supply and demand and a global warming connection that will be much harder to make than other feedback loops like ocean acidification or deforestation.
In addition to meat being more affordable for emerging nations (where increases are most heavily seen), the status symbol of meat I think is a driving factor in the increase in consumption. I am very curious to know the role media plays in marketing meat in those countries.
DeleteThis research is very interesting. It isnt something that people often think about. I am wondering if meat production uses more pollutants than transportation? And if that ratio is significantly different for beef, pork and chicken.
ReplyDelete