Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

How Eating Less Beef Will Benefit the Environment

Food

The planet and its inhabitants will always welcome recycling and decreases in water and energy usage, but take a look at your beef consumption if you really want to help the environment.

A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says livestock production puts more of a strain on our air and water quality and ocean health than most realize while ramping up greenhouse gas emissions regionally and globally. All told, beef, pork, chicken, eggs, dairy and plant food production combines for the largest use of land around the world.

Still, beef stands far above the production of other livestock for its negative environmental impact. According to the study, beef production requires 28 times more land, 11 times more water and six times as much reactive nitrogen as the average of the other forms of livestock.

Livestock production uses more land than any other process, but beef production takes the cake for its strain on the environment.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

“For people, the obvious answer is: Whenever possible, replace beef with something else," Gidon Eshel, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at Bard College, told the Los Angeles Times.

"If you really need it to be from animal sources, that’s still OK. You can still have bacon and eggs and whatever you want. As long as it’s not beef, you have always made a significant step forward, because beef is so much more intensive than the rest.” 

The good news is that the USDA projects its lowest per-capita consumption of beef since the '50s. Additionally, the study prompted Kim Stackhouse-Lawson, director of sustainability research for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, to remind people that the U.S. beef industry produces its products with fewer emissions than any other developed country.

The Times also spoke the author of a study in the Climate Change journal that examined methane and nitrous oxide emissions during the production of 11 livestock populations in 237 countries. Beef represented more than half of the emissions, followed by dairy cattle at 17 percent and sheep, buffalo, pigs and goats all in single digits. While emissions from U.S. livestock production dropped by 23 percent since 1970, they have more than doubled in developing countries, the Climate Change study's co-author Ken Caldeira, a Carnegie Institution ecologist, said.

"More and more of the developing world is adopting the bad habits of the developed world,” Caldeira said.

In talking to the Huffington Post about his study, Esehl encouraged consumers who won't stop eating beef to consider more than if your meat is from a local source or if it was fed grass. He said the climate of the area where the animal was raised is more important, as are the particular farming methods that were used.

"I really appreciate the good intentions of many individuals who strive in their personal choices to lessen their environmental impact," Eshel said. "I would just caution ... against adhering to canned solutions that are purported to make matters better with little or no evidence that they in fact do."

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Moroccan patients who recovered from the novel coronavirus disease celebrate with medical staff as they leave the hospital in Sale, Morocco, on April 3, 2020. AFP / Getty Images

By Tom Duszynski

The coronavirus is certainly scary, but despite the constant reporting on total cases and a climbing death toll, the reality is that the vast majority of people who come down with COVID-19 survive it. Just as the number of cases grows, so does another number: those who have recovered.

In mid-March, the number of patients in the U.S. who had officially recovered from the virus was close to zero. That number is now in the tens of thousands and is climbing every day. But recovering from COVID-19 is more complicated than simply feeling better. Recovery involves biology, epidemiology and a little bit of bureaucracy too.

Read More Show Less
Reef scene with crinoid and fish in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Reinhard Dirscherl / ullstein bild / Getty Images

By Elizabeth Claire Alberts

The future for the world's oceans often looks grim. Fisheries are set to collapse by 2048, according to one study, and 8 million tons of plastic pollute the ocean every year, causing considerable damage to delicate marine ecosystems. Yet a new study in Nature offers an alternative, and more optimistic view on the ocean's future: it asserts that the entire marine environment could be substantially rebuilt by 2050, if humanity is able to step up to the challenge.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
A daughter touches her father's head while saying goodbye as medics prepare to transport him to Stamford Hospital on April 02, 2020 in Stamford, Connecticut. He had multiple COVID-19 symptoms. John Moore / Getty Images

Across the country, the novel coronavirus is severely affecting black people at much higher rates than whites, according to data released by several states, as The New York Times reported.

Read More Show Less
Four rolls of sourdough bread are arranged on a surface. Photo by Laura Chase de Formigny and food styling by Lisa Cherkasky for The Washington Post / Getty Images

By Zulfikar Abbany

Bread has been a source of basic nutrition for centuries, the holy trinity being wheat, maize and rice. It has also been the reason for a lot of innovation in science and technology, from millstones to microbiological investigations into a family of single-cell fungi called Saccharomyces.

Read More Show Less

Trending

A coral reef in Egypt's Red Sea. Tropical ocean ecosystems could see sudden biodiversity losses this decade if emissions are not reduced. Georgette Douwma / Stone / Getty Images

The biodiversity loss caused by the climate crisis will be sudden and swift, and could begin before 2030.

Read More Show Less