Does being an omnivore contribute to global warming?

How much does the methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide produced in the process of factory farming contribute to global climate change?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-...i_b_39014.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toby-b...e_b_39167.html

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/libr...d/A0701E00.pdf

Regardless of how much, consuming animal products is less efficient than not consuming them; if the production of those animal products involved the burning of carbon-based fuels, then the answer to your question is, "yes".

[Gnosital]

Wild Red wrote

How much does the methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide produced in the process of factory farming contribute to global climate change?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-...i_b_39014.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toby-b...e_b_39167.html

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/libr...d/A0701E00.pdf

I think it could, but only if we fart a lot.

The real isue is, if we drive a Prius like DiCaprio, then is it ok to eat meat?


Whatever happened to harnessing the methane produced by farm animals as an energy source?

[Gnosital]

ocmpoma wrote

Regardless of how much, consuming animal products is less efficient than not consuming them; if the production of those animal products involved the burning of carbon-based fuels, then the answer to your question is, "yes".

Come on, ocmpoma! The main gist of the article was animal flatulence! Cow farts cause global warming?? Call me skeptical, but I think I'd like to see more data. From a climatologist, not a vegan, innit.

I wonder if Kate has any good pictures for this ?

[Choobus]

scathach wrote

I wonder if Kate has any good pictures for this ?

now you've done it......

[Gnosital]

Choobus wrote

now you've done it......

Yeah. I ought to be spanked.

Sorry Red, now I've gone and ruint your thread.

:P

[Sternwallow]

If practicing carnivorism stops a cow from producing methane, it is good for global warming. :)

ocmpoma wrote

if the production of those animal products involved the burning of carbon-based fuels, then the answer to your question is, "yes".

I agree with you, but if we could convince everyone to become vegetarian, wouldn't large scale farming of plant-based foods involve carbon-based fuels?

scathach wrote

Sorry Red, now I've gone and ruint your thread.

You're allowed--I see how you are.

[Philboid Studge]

Methane accounts for 9% of anthropogenic sources of GHGs. (CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is 82%).

According to the latest figures (2004), methane emissions from livestock flatulence -- or enteric fermentation -- accounts for 20% of the above 9% (with 'manure management' accounting for another 7%).

Short answer to thread question is 'yes.'

Longer answer: We could probably significantly reduce anthropogenic GHGs by striking meat off the diet. A part of that reduction would be because of the decrease in enteric fermentation + manure management. A much bigger part of that reduction would be the result of the dramatic drop in fossil fuels: as OC points out, raising livestock for food is much less energy-efficient than vegetarianism.

Why do I say 'probably' and not 'definitely'? I haven't looked deeply into the consequences of a global shift to vegetarianism (although I bet someone has). In some sectors, CH4 emissions would rise. Off the top of my head: rice production is a CH4 source, and that source would probably rise if humans stop eating meat.


*I eschew the term 'farting' since that excludes sharting, a significant component in CH4 production.

Sources: Inventory of GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990-2004
www.epa.gov/methane/sources.htm

[Philboid Studge]

Wild Red wrote

I agree with you, but if we could convince everyone to become vegetarian, wouldn't large scale farming of plant-based foods involve carbon-based fuels?

First of all, if everyone became a vegetarian, we'd be grower less vegetation for food than we do now. Second of all, CO2 emissions could be reduced by 21% with such a shift in global diet. (Note that the Kyoto Protocol calls for CO2 reduction to 5% below 1990 levels, which, incidentally, is considered only a first baby step toward meaningful reduction of GHGs.)

[Gnosital]

Wouldn't we still have to truck all kinds of produce all over the place because nothin worth eating is growing around my neck o' the woods these days!

[Gnosital]

Wild Red wrote

You're allowed--I see how you are.

Yes, I yam what i yam.

But wait til Kate comes to the party!

[Philboid Studge]

scathach wrote

Wouldn't we still have to truck all kinds of produce all over the place because nothin worth eating is growing around my neck o' the woods these days!

Yes.* But, you'd be producing far less volume of greenery cuz there'd be no bovines to feed. (Trucking produce stuff around is only one small way that agriculture produces GHGs. There's also fertilizer production, manufacture of farm equipment, irrigation, plowing, baling, cow sharts, and et cetera.

*Or maybe no. There's be zero trucking around of livestock, butchered meat, etc. Perhaps it'd balance out.

Come on, ocmpoma!

Sorry, I was responding to the question posed in the thread title, rather than to the articles in the OP. I should've been clearer.

[Kate]

Hi, Red! Sorry I'm late!