What’s That Burger Emitting?

We may have to put down our hamburgers before we can clean up our atmosphere.

In “Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)?” University of Surrey’s Tara Garnett weighs the merits of different food-related greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement strategies and concludes that reducing consumption patterns is the only viable long-term solution.

The business of feeding ourselves has become bad for the planet. GHGs are produced at nearly every step of food production and transportation. And when you need to feed seven billion people these GHGs quickly add up. As just one example, food contributes 31 percent of the EU-25’s total GHG emissions.

The biggest opportunity to reduce GHG emissions in the food production chain starts on the farm. Carbon sequestration, when combined with a high carbon price, could offset up to 80 percent of carbon emissions related to agriculture. However, Garnett points out that carbon sequestration relies heavily on available land, an increasingly rare commodity, which makes it an unlikely long-term solution. Garnett also worries that

a focus on carbon sequestration and associated offsetting activities can distract from the real challenge of tackling fossil fuel dependence and the consumption habits supported by it.

Animals reared on industrial farms produce fewer GHG emissions than their pasture-raised counterparts: raising animals more quickly on less land decreases the amount of GHGs produced per unit of edible output. But Garnett points out that industrial farms produce a different set of concerns, including animal cruelty, less robust animal populations, and environmental pollution from animal waste. She notes that increased reliance on intensive livestock production should only be considered as a solution “if growth in demand for animal products is seen as inevitable.”

Opportunities for GHG emission reductions continue all the way up the food chain.  These include investing in energy-efficient products, using renewable power sources, and focusing on resource efficiency. However, even if all of these measures are taken, the steady increase in global demand, especially from burgeoning middle classes in countries like China and Brazil, will quickly eliminate any gains made in the reduction of GHG emissions.

This leads to what is, perhaps, Garnett’s most salient point: our planet cannot sustainably feed the current population a diet of animal products. Reducing the amount of animal products we eat seems like a problem of the developed world, but Garnett points out that Americans eating fewer hamburgers will not stem the tide of rising GHG emissions. Cutting consumption of meat in the developed world will have little impact in reducing GHGs if consumption continues to rise in the developing world, even at modest rates.

Reducing meat and dairy consumption means radically different things for different populations. In the developed world, it means breaking lifelong diets based on animal byproducts, a change which may have health benefits. In the developing world, where malnutrition remains a problem, a reduction in animal-based protein could lead to even higher rates of malnutrition.

Decreasing consumption of animal products is just one item in a long list of “Low GHG food behaviors” that Garnett proposes. Other suggestions include eating only enough food to maintain a healthy weight, decreasing food waste, and consuming less junk food.

Garnett offers little advice to policymakers interested in curbing people’s appetites.  Barring spikes in food prices that shift diets away from animal products, reductions in consumption may prove illusive. Considering the limited success of efforts to lower obesity rates in the United States and Europe, policymakers may have to take more drastic measures to pry the burgers from our hands.