Where’s the Beef?

In the war against climate change, activists have declared war upon nature itself. Through good intentions to reduce climate emissions, the externalities of their policies are often ignored. Famous examples of casualties in their war are whales and dolphins in the American northeast and Germany’s energy policies. In the American northeast, policymakers approved the rise of wind turbines off the coast. With the rise of each Wind Turbine, we find marine life beached upon the shore. “Experts” will say there is “no evidence” of the Wind Turbines causing the death of whales and dolphins or would say that the deaths are due to the increased population of these animals. No evidence is a simple phrase with a complicated meaning. In this instance, “no evidence” does not mean the wind turbines are not causing the deaths, but the experts simply have not researched it. Considering the Navy admitted that sonar impacts marine wildlife and that solar turbines use sonar during construction, there is a correlation (Potenza 2016). Why the evidence is not definitive, more research should be conducted just to ensure we are not killing endangered species (Cohen 2023). Across the pond, we see how the Germans dismantled their nuclear plants in order to use “green” energy. While the motive was to use solar and wind, it is clear these energy sources are not enough to keep Germany running. In order to use these energies, they have simultaneously run power plants using natural gas and coal. Since the Russo-Ukraine War, Germany is now dependent on coal to be “green” (Tuccille 2023). While each of these topics deserves its own article, today we will focus on beef.

You can find articles here on Medium (or elsewhere on the web) that have beef with beef due to emissions; sometimes they are from the same sources that have a general problem with the consumption of meat. I am not going to question the motives of the writers of these articles because I believe they have the best of intentions. Despite their intentions and motivations, their policy solution of eating less beef in all likelihood will not solve any of the issues they set out to fix and may actually hurt their own cause. To explain why, we will show that eliminating beef at the supermarket does not eliminate the problem, the problem with emission data itself, and the contradiction between the policy solution and its impact.

But first, let us discuss the argument against beef (and to a lesser extent other meat sources). They will point out that emissions from meat are larger than plant-based sources, use more land, and most of our calories come from plant-based sources (Abela 2023). While I will discuss the two first points later in this article, I will focus on the third point here. Some argue that 18% of our calories just come from meat and dairy (Abela 2023). Their argument is then, since the amount of calories from meat-based products is so small, takes up so many resources, and has a larger adverse impact on the environment, then it would be more efficient to simply eat plant-based calories. While there is some evidence to suggest the calories consumed from meat and dairy is 18%, this does not present the full story. In the United States, 27% of calories come from Meat, Egg, and Dairy per National Geographic (2011). However, some studies do (nearly) agree with the original statistic that Meat & Dairy products make up 19% of calories (Srour, Fezeu, Kesse-Guyot, and Touvier 2019). But, these statistics are misleading. In the National Geographic, 37% of calories are from Sugar & Fat and 6% from Other which is mostly alcohol. I do not believe any health expert would suggest we should replace Meat, Dairy, & Eggs with Sugar, Fat, and/or Beer. For the study that agreed with the original statistic, 16% of calories are from Beverages and 28% from Sugary Products; Salty Snacks and Fats & Sauces are their own categories. So if we did want to replace Meat, Diary, & Eggs with healthy plant-based alternatives, we will need to replace between 35% and 47% of our calories. Some people may still support this policy, except it is important to point out that beef products are not solely used for food. 60% of beef is used for food consumption, but 40% that is not used for food is used in a variety of products, including pharmaceuticals (Kim and Orwig 2017). Pigs are used in over 180 non-food related products and eggs are used in vaccines (Dunk 2009 & McRea). Even if we eat less beef, pork, and poultry, this may have a negligible impact on the overall meat industry; especially when we consider the specialization of some products. Instead, we will need to double the amount of calories from plant-based products to replace meat-based products. This means our behavior shift will not reduce the amount of emissions, but instead increase them.

But this is only the first problem. Let us look at the statistics of emissions per food source. Per Our World in Data, products measured in kg CO2 per kg product are as follows (Ritchie 2020). Beef (beef herd) is 60, Lamb & Mutton is 24, Beef (dairy herd) is 21, Pig Meat is 7, Poultry Meat is 6, Olive Oil is 6, Eggs is 4.5, Rice is 4, Milk is 3, Wheat & Rye is 1.4, Tomatoes 1.4, Corn 1, and Soymilk is .9. In general, meat products tend to be much higher than plant-based products according to the “data”. Why did I use quotation marks for data? Well, how can milk and beef (dairy herd) have such different emission rates? To put this in perspective, an average dairy cow tends to live for five years. Three of those years they will produce milk. When their milk production declines, they are culled for meat. So for those three years, a cow could produce over 70,000 pounds of milk before being culled (Shahbandeh 2023). That means in their lifetime, the pounds of food they produced would be the milk plus the meat, which a cow could weigh up to 1,500 pounds. So if we were to analyze the emissions per dairy cow, we could have two different methods. We could measure the time a cow is used for milk and then used for beef or measure the pounds that went to milk versus the pounds that went to meat consumption. In either case, it is about 99% of this cow’s emissions should be assigned to the milk and not the beef. Then how can the beef from this cow emit 7 times more emissions than its production of milk? Maybe they do not include male cattle in the emissions for milk and include them for beef. But, this would be unfair because farmers cannot make a calf male or female before they are born. So, the emissions from a male calf should be attributed to both milk and beef in a similar manner. Maybe they double-count the statistics wherein emissions are contributed to both milk and beef. Perhaps this is an oversight, but the messaging from the higher powers suggests if there was motivation to put their thumb on the scale, it would be against the beef industry.

But even if the data was correct, let us look at where the emissions are attributed to farm animals, particularly the three biggest producers of emissions. A majority of emissions come from the animals living on the farm. If we were to exclude losses, the percentage of emissions that come from either land use change or the animals living on the farm are as follows (Poore and Nemecek 2018). Beef from beef herds would be 94%, lamb & mutton would be 82%, and beef from dairy herds would be 79%. If we were to include losses, the percentage changes as follows. From land use change and living on the farm, emissions from beef herds would be 80% and both lamb & mutton and beef from dairy cows would be 70%. Regarding land use, opponents would point to the Amazon where farmers are cutting down the rainforest mostly for cattle (Abela 2023). But is this the cattle’s fault for emissions? Could we ban cutting down the rainforest for any purpose and place more beef herds in the American Midwest or Mountain States? After all, in theory, while Beef Herds do use a lot of land, it is not intensively used. Unlike other agriculture products which require intensive use, kill all the animals in the field, and use lots of fertilizer and pesticide (which is itself poor for the environment), a Beef Herd can be left to graze. The farmer just needs to put out food and protect the cattle from predators. Then again, if Beef Herds are situated similarly to Dairy Cows, perhaps this would be a way to reduce emissions without fundamentally changing our behavior. This in itself is important because let us discuss how cows and other animals produce emissions… they produce emissions by living.

In the data we presented earlier, emissions were measured by kg CO2 per kg product. The issue with Cows and other animals is not they produce lots of carbon dioxide but rather they produce a lot of methane. Different gases have different impacts on the environment, but when discussing which gas is worse, scientists need to compare them on a similar scale. So, they convert other gases in proportion to how bad it is to the environment compared to Carbon Dioxide. By converting everything to a similar measurement, you can then compare the environmental damage caused by different sources by using a similar metric. Methane is generally calculated worse than carbon dioxide. The Dutch Central Statistical Office says 1 kg of methane is as bad as 25 kg of carbon dioxide, the EPA has it at 28 times as worse, and others have it 84 times worse. To put this in perspective, Nitrous oxide is deemed to be 298 times worse than Carbon Dioxide, 265 times worse, and 298 times worse per those same sources respectively. While Methane is generally treated worse because it initially catches more energy from the sun than carbon dioxide, methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere is just 12 years per the EPA. Both Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide are in the atmosphere, on average, for at least a century. Nitrous Oxide, by the way, is found in fertilizers used to grow plant-based products and is the biggest source of emissions in agriculture with half the emissions in the agriculture sector (USDA 2022). Perhaps if they used cleaner, more natural fertilizers (such as manure), the emissions would decrease. But, I digress. Why do animals produce methane? Through natural bodily functions, such as making manure.

There is not a single other method we measure emissions where we punish beings just to exist except when it comes to agriculture. The emissions that activists want to reduce come from animals living on a farm and performing natural bodily functions. Can you imagine if people were measured in a similar manner? Let us hope those with gastrointestinal issues are not thrown under the bus for the greater good. Can you imagine if we calculated the emissions of all wildlife in a similar manner we test cows, sheep, and pigs? If given the choice of whether we should double the populations of endangered species so that these species may prosper or keep the populations the same so there will be less methane in the air, I would endeavor to choose the former over the latter each and every time. Those who are singularly focused on the goal of reducing emissions may have a more favorable view of the buffalos that were massacred in the 19th century. If this proves the case, it would be truly appalling.

In their defense, I do not believe they seek to destroy wildlife and animals. Instead, I suspect they follow the same beliefs as the Humane League (Waxman 2022 and Humane League 2023). They want to eliminate beef for human consumption to reduce emissions (and other moral reasons) and then allow the cows to live a long, happy life. If this is the case, then their policy is hypocrisy. There are 1.5 billion cows at the present moment that produce methane (Brown 2021). This number is, mostly, controlled so this population is stable. For example, over 300,000,000 million cows per year are killed for human consumption (Roser 2023). If we were to eliminate the beef industry and allow cows to live natural lives, as the Humane League wants, we would expect the population to explode. Dairy cows have an average lifespan of 5 years and beef cattle have an average life span of 18 months (RSPCA Factsheet). The natural lifespan of cows is between 20 to 30 years (RSPCA Factsheet). This means most cows living today in the beef and dairy industry can live for at least another 15 years. Without any human intervention except for feeding the cattle, they will have another 15 years of producing offspring. 1.5 billion is the floor but it could easily be in the tens of billions if the Humane Society gets their way. This ignores sheep, chickens, and pigs that will undergo a similar population growth. To prevent this, you will either need to sterilize a large population of cattle or cull the populations immediately. The former may be more humane, the latter much more cost-effective. If we choose the former, do we decide to keep the cattle populations the same? Do we increase it? Decrease it? If we choose to increase it, then we would increase the amount of emissions they produce. If we choose the status quo, emissions will not change regardless. The only way to reduce emissions would be to reduce the population, but by how much? Honestly, if we eliminate the beef and dairy industry, having cows living on farms would be a luxury good. Maybe some people will have them as pets. Maybe some people will keep them like horses. If this is the case, then nearly half of all mammal biomass will be reduced within a generation (Ritchie 2022). Then again, until the population declines, the emissions level will not change either. The only way to reduce emissions immediately is to cull the herds. We would imagine the Humane League would find this to be inhumane.

If reducing emissions is the goal and eating less beef is the policy solution, the only possible action that will lead to this success is eliminating half of all mammal biomass on the planet. Whether it is done immediately or over a generation, this is the only way to reduce emissions. If we keep cattle, pigs, and other livestock at the same population level as of now, there will be no change in emissions. If we allow them to live natural lives under our protection, their populations, and thus their emissions, will grow exponentially as well. This is the Catch-22 of those who oppose the beef industry. If they want the cows on the farm to live long and fruitful lives, they will fail in their goal of reducing emissions. For their policy to be successful, their policy must be death.

If you choose not to have a burger because you do not like the taste, that is fine. If you choose not to have a burger because of moral objections, that is your right. If you choose not to have a burger because it may be good for the environment, that is your right as well. But, this policy solution on either a national or global scale simply will not work. However, this is not to say all hope is lost. There are policy solutions that can be effective. For example, as stated before, do not clear the rainforest for cattle or for other purposes. Research other methods to reduce methane in cattle. An optimistic study showed that seaweed could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in cattle by 82% (Nelson 2021). If this seaweed can be produced on a mass scale, this may make meat products as environmentally friendly as their plant-based competitors.

There are serious problems in this world. While those who try to solve those problems may have good intentions, they sometimes lack the foresight to see if a solution is able to work. Unfortunately, this is common within environmental policies (Guglielmello 2023). These policies tend to have an adverse impact on the environment and the only benefit comes from the political actors who either go to sleep thinking they saved the world or count the votes they have won. The prime example is the New Jersey Plastic Bag Ban (Guglielmello 2023). Eliminating emissions is challenging. Eliminating emissions without hurting nature is proving to be more challenging for those in the halls of power. However, there are some solutions that not only would reduce emissions but actually have positive externalities as well. But, that is a story for another time.