mad_cow
U.S.-China beef deal puts higher emissions on the menu.
The growing Chinese middle class has a love affair with beef, and it now has a new supplier. The deal could increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from livestock.
For the first time in 14 years, American beef will end up on Chinese dining tables, thanks to a trade deal finalized this week.
For a meat-loving Chinese middle class, this comes as good news. But the arrangement could lead to millions of tons of additional greenhouse gases from the United States' cattle industry, the world's largest beef producer, especially if Chinese beef consumption continues its expected climb.
The production of livestock accounts for more than 14 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, the third-largest contributor after energy production and transportation. Of all livestock, beef cattle are the most greenhouse gas-intensive, accounting for about 40 percent of all livestock-related emissions. That's largely because of the methane cattle emit when belching and the impact of feed production, which includes lands being converted for grazing or growing grain.
The Chinese government banned imports of American beef in 2003 after mad cow disease was discovered in some U.S. cattle herds. But the U.S. beef industry has pushed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop measures that persuaded the Chinese government to reopen its market. The final push came in the last couple of months, after President Donald Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss U.S.-China trade in April.
"Chinese consumption of beef is already on the rise. It's doubled over the past decade, and that's part of the reason they're interested in this," said Sujatha Bergen, a food and agriculture policy specialist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "They're needing to satisfy rising demand."
At the same time, appetites for beef in the U.S.—the world's fourth-largest consumer—have dropped.
"This is definitely a case where we don't want the U.S. exporting its bad habits," Bergen added. "Especially on an issue where we're doing a pretty good job."
According to figures crunched by NRDC earlier this year, the drop in U.S. beef consumption has had an appreciable impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the course of the last decade, American beef consumption declined 19 percent, leading to a reduction of 185 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions, according to NRDC. Overall, changes in American dietary patterns—which include lower consumption of beef, orange juice, milk, pork and chicken—led to an emissions drop of 271 million tons over the decade. (Total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., by comparison, averaged about 6 billion tons a year over the same period.)
China emits more greenhouse gases than any other country, but the average Chinese citizen is responsible for less than half the contribution to climate change of the average American. Americans eat more beef, per capita, than any other country beside Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. Still, China, the world's most populous country eats about a third of the meat produced globally, and that number will likely climb over the next couple of decades as consumption is projected to rise. Beef consumption alone could rise 47 percent by 2030.
The Chinese government's nutrition authority, meanwhile, is attempting to lower meat consumption in the country, setting a goal of halving meat consumption from current levels to 27 kilograms per person, per year. (The Chinese "food pagoda"—modeled after the U.S. Department of Agriculture's original food pyramid—advocates a plant-based diet.)
While the goal is aimed at cutting diseases related to high-fat diets, the environmental outcomes could be significant.
In a 2016 study, researchers found that cutting red meat consumption by 100 grams per day in 2050 could not only prevent 2.2 million deaths in China but cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than a billion metric tons. The same study found that switching to a plant-based diet could cut up to 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
It's unclear how much American beef production could rise in response to the reopened market and fresh demand, but it's clear it will go up. According to a letter the cattle industry's main trade group sent to Trump, China represents the market with the greatest growth potential for U.S. beef.
"I haven't seen specific projections for Chinese imports or the climate impact," Bergen said. "But, overall, if consumption continues its trajectory, it will be much harder to hit emissions targets."
Keep reading...Show less
How to safeguard science in an era of fake news.
An educated public is the cornerstone of a prosperous nation, and a vital tenet of our democracy. That is why it is more important than ever to reaffirm the role of facts and evidence in our media, and in our politics.
Science and journalism don’t always see eye to eye. Scientific accuracy is often sacrificed in the quest for an enticing headline, but at a time when fake news is on the rise, high quality scientific reporting has never been more essential.
As the House of Commons science and technology select committee, which I chair, argues in its latest report, if the press is to maintain the public’s trust, journalists must demonstrate their commitment to clear and unbiased reporting of scientific facts – and be given the necessary support by policymakers to do so.
The idea that ‘science sells’ is not part of the average journalist’s lexicon. Add a sensationalist headline, and a political angle, however, and you can produce a trending and controversial piece of journalism that sparks debate – a result both for the media outlet and the journalist.
But while selling papers and driving online traffic is a media priority, it rarely aligns with the scientific endeavour behind the headlines. More often than not, scientists are looking to provide the public with greater clarity, rather than confuse or further mystify the topic of their research.
This phenomenon is nothing new. While the row over the MMR vaccine was making front-page news, such large numbers of parents decided to avoid vaccinations that the UK’s child immunisation programme was put at risk. Genetically-modified crops were long ago classed by the tabloids as ‘Frankenstein’ foods to be avoided at all costs, rather than a potential solution to sporadic famine and food poverty. We may never know if the burger fed to four year-old Cordelia Gummer during the mad cow disease crisis in 1990 was really safe to eat. What we do know is that there was a political and media motivation for it to be consumed.
Climate change has not escaped this treatment either. Media coverage of climate often gives equal prominence to opposing viewpoints, leading an uninformed public to believe that the evidence for and against has equal weight. A distinction must be made between impartiality and neutrality; between taking sides based on the evidence, and refusing to take sides at all.
Perhaps the most acute example is the number of everyday items claimed – rightly or wrongly – to have carcinogenic properties. Deodorant, vitamin E, chips, tomatoes and even Facebook have been reported in the UK media to increase your chances of developing cancer. Compare this to the number of reports on cigarettes and UV exposure – both well-known and proven causes – and you might be surprised.
As the ability to proliferate and share news increases, and our reliance on traditional media declines, we run the risk that a plurality of perspectives takes precedence over accuracy. This is a dangerous environment to exist in.
It would also be wrong to scapegoat the public for a lack of interest in science, or for not being able to understand the often complex concepts involved. The overwhelming majority of people in the UK have a strong desire to know how science affects their daily lives, but seventy-one per cent believe the media sensationalises science, and sixty-seven per cent say they have no option but to trust those governing scientific information. Tellingly, just twenty-eight per cent believe that journalists check their facts when reporting scientific matters.
In its new report on Science Communication and Engagement, my committee found that the rules around policymaking currently make it far too easy for ministers to use science selectively to either back a political aim or, worse still, to mask financial reasons for not taking sufficient action. We must never allow “the science is inconclusive” to become code for “we haven’t got the money.” The government’s rulebook on public consultation must ensure that ministers make it much clearer how they are taking scientific evidence into account independently of other political considerations.
We also found that where scientific evidence is wilfully misreported, procedures for redress and correction are deeply lacking. Media organisations, which hold so much influence and responsibility in this area, must take greater care to avoid false balance. Misreporting can also be linked to the news embargo period sometimes applied to scientific papers prior to their formal release. This limits the media’s ability to challenge any spin and review the facts. Editors, press offices and PR companies should not support this news management tactic.
These problems can be tackled. Science and journalism have shared objectives, to separate fact and opinion, and uncover truth on behalf of the public. An educated public is the cornerstone of a prosperous nation, and a vital tenet of our democracy. That is why it is more important than ever to reaffirm the role of facts and evidence in our media, and in our politics. We need a firm commitment by all those in the political sphere to pursue evidence-based policy making, rather than policy-based evidence.
Stephen Metcalfe (@Metcalfe_SBET) is MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock and chairman of the House of Commons science and technology select committee. The committee’s new report on ‘Science communication and engagement’ can be read here.
Keep reading...Show less
Tackling food waste as a way to save the climate, too.
Recycling the staggering amount of food that's wasted into livestock feed is increasingly being seen as a tool in the U.S. effort against climate change.
Recycling the staggering amount of food that's wasted into livestock feed is increasingly being seen as a tool in the U.S. effort against climate change.
BY GEORGINA GUSTIN
SEP 6, 2016
A staggering amount of food, estimated at $165 billion each year, is wasted in the U.S. Redirecting that waste into farm fodder, a simple but out-of-fashion practice, could greatly benefit the climate by reducing methane emissions. Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
At his hog farm about a dozen miles from Las Vegas' famed strip, Bob Combs became a celebrity of sorts for hauling thousands of pounds of leftovers from casinos' all-you-can-eat buffets and feeding it to his 3,000 pigs.
Farmers used to call the practice "garbage feeding." Today, researchers see it as a tool for stemming climate change. That's because the growing amount of wasted food around the world adds methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere as it rots in landfills.
Combs just happened to be a pioneer recycler.
"These buffets, they generate so much waste," said Nicole Civita, director of the Food Recovery Project at the University of Arkansas School of Law. "They have to serve all kinds of food, a diversity. But the side effect of all that choice is there are lots of things we don't choose."
Casino diners in Las Vegas aren't the only ones to blame. Together, the world's food makers, farmers and consumers toss away one-third of all the food produced for human consumption.
If global food waste was a country, it would be the third-biggest greenhouse gas emitter after the U.S. and China. In the U.S., methane accounts for about 11 percent of greenhouse gas emissions—about a quarter of which comes from decomposing, uneaten food. If more supermarkets, restaurants and hotel chains redirected that waste into farm fodder, it could benefit not just the climate by reducing methane emissions, but also conserve the huge amount of resources that go into growing food for livestock.
"When we're talking about food waste going to animals, what we're talking about is to offset the food we feed to them," explained Dana Gunders, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "That's the biggest climate benefit of feeding wasted food to animals. But on top of that you can benefit from it not decomposing in landfills."
It seems like a win-win-win situation. But a patchwork of restrictive state and federal laws means U.S. farmers rarely feed food scraps to livestock anymore. So Civita and her colleagues worked with Harvard University's Food Law and Policy Clinic to produce a report to help farmers revive this out-of-fashion practice.
The guide, called Leftovers for Livestock, helps steer waste-generators and farmers through the various laws that limit feeding scraps to farm animals. Many of those were passed after livestock diseases were linked to animal products in feed, notably mad cow disease in cattle and foot-and-mouth disease in swine. By 2007, the guide reports, only 3 percent of American hog farmers fed scraps to their animals.
"We needed to do this work to demystify all this so that people on the ground, producing our food, can actually make use of this more sustainable feed supply," Civita said. "Farmers are really busy people. We can't expect them to figure out these regs on their own."
The guide addresses just a small piece in the broader discussion of food waste, which has grown louder and more urgent in recent years. The issue has grabbed the attention of U.S. lawmakers, including Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), an organic farmer. In late 2015, she introduced a bill that would, among other things, tweak the laws pertaining to grocery "sell by" dates and expand tax breaks to encourage farmers, restaurants and retailers to donate food waste to food banks and shelters. Tossing food, Pingree said at a meeting in Washington, D.C this summer, is "viscerally something we know we shouldn't be doing."
But it's also morphing, at least in the public's awareness, from a moral no-no in a world where hunger is commonplace—a kind of collective ethical transgression—into a climate change issue (also a moral cause for many).
Gunders of NRDC did a comprehensive study of food waste in the U.S. in 2012 and found that food production consumes 10 percent of the country's energy budget, uses half of its land and consumes 80 percent of its fresh water. Americans throw out $165 billion in food a year, about 40 percent of the country's food—more than 20 pounds per person, per month.
"I kept saying, how can these numbers be true, and if they are, how can nobody be talking about them?" Gunders recalled. "But I think it's very safe to say that the level of attention and awareness has increased dramatically. The concern around food waste has gained a ton of traction."
Last year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture announced an ambitious goal: a 50 percent reduction in food waste by 2030, in line with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. Across the country, cities are implementing food waste diversion programs, and entrepreneurs are entering the food waste business.
Governments and advocates in industrialized countries have aimed their waste-reduction initiatives largely at consumers. Increasingly, Civita and her colleagues say, farmers have expressed an interest in helping out on their side of the equation and cutting food losses before the food enters consumer channels.
"Farmers all around me said: For ages humans have had closed-loop food systems," Civita said. "But how do we do this legally?"
There are limitations beyond legal ones. Already much of the spent grains in the U.S.—like those used in brewing or distilling—go into animal feed, largely in big, industrialized operations. Most remaining food waste—our leftovers—is more difficult to convert into feed. Meanwhile, livestock producers have carefully calibrated the feed they give so that animals grow to exactly the right weight at the right pace, and wasted food may not represent the most efficient fodder.
"They say: It's going to cost me more in the long run," Civita said. "So we need to do a lot more to figure out how to do this more efficiently. Right now, we're talking about using leftovers as a supplement."
Civita and her colleagues haven't yet calculated the precise environmental impact of recycling food waste into livestock feed. In fact, research around food waste is so new, that the World Resources Institute, working with 200 or so global stakeholders, only this year released a standard measure of it.
"Food waste doesn't mean the same thing universally," explained Kai Robertson, who leads the institute's food loss and waste program. "It's difficult to manage what doesn't get measured, and because it's not that straightforward to measure food waste, this standard provides for a common framework."
Going forward, that standard could help waste generators measure how much they toss—and target better ways to reduce it.
The UN already estimates that diverting food waste into feed could free up enough land to feed 3 billion people, and a University of Cambridge study found that feeding food waste to pigs in the European Union could cut the amount of land used to grow pig feed (soybeans and corn) by 4.4 million acres. That report calculated that 600,000 of those acres are in Brazilian tropical forests and savannah, which are increasingly being cleared to grow animal feed.
"This feels like a silver bullet, but, of course, in a systems-based approach, there are no silver bullets. It's not quite that simple," Civita said. "Although, it gives you a sense of scope and scale. It gives you a sense of the possibility."
At the very least, the practice saves money. The MGM Grand Buffet increased its food donations from about 3,350 tons in 2007 to 14,000 tons in 2011, according to Civita's report, and 20 percent of that went to Combs' farm, where it fed about 3,000 hogs.
"They take that food and immediately put in back in the food system, utilizing excess to substantially increase the efficiency of producing pork," Civita said. "That's a pretty good solution."
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
