When someone says that we need to stop eating red meat to save the planet from climate change – consider the following information:
- Current natural emissions: 210 Giga-Tonne (GT) PA
- Man-made emissions: 6.3 GT PA
- Total CO2 equivalent emission = 216 GT PA
- Human emissions are thus approx 3% of total emissions
- Animal agriculture accounts for approx 2.5% of total human emissions. That’s 2.5% of that 3% of total CO2 emissions.
Total animal agriculture accounts approx 0.075% of annual CO2 emissions.
For comparison, some other human emissions to consider:
- Landfill = 2.6%
- Air travel = 3.3%
- Road travel = 22%
- Cement = 2.3%
- Paper = 2.3%
- Electricity and heating = 32%
There is a term “Fugitive Emissions” which basically means leaks of gasses from industrial processes. These account for 3% of total human emissions.
So, do you think we should plug the industrial leaks (3% human CO2) or get rid of herbivores (2.5% human CO2)? Or should we stop using paper and then putting it into landfill?
Note that if we humans were not here, the world would be teaming with more herbivores that there are right now. So we should get rid of those unnatural red meat producing animals that account for less emissions that what our industrial base leaks each year?
It should be clear to a rational thinking being that emissions from animals is one of the last things we should be worrying about.
It should also be abundantly clear that the message “stop eating red meat to save the planet” can only be the result of groups pushing another agenda other than climate change concerns.