Xpyr Press: focusing on critical issues, atypical and holistic perspectives, and voices from underrepresented communities; contact: xpyrpress@gmail.com
Pandemics Ahead: Number 7 in a series looking at the link between animal protein and global health disasters.
Excerpt from Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming by Moses Seenarine, (2016). Xpyr Press, 348 pages. ISBN: 0692641157. http://amzn.to/2yn7XrC
Of all the species that have populated Earth at some time over the past 3.5 billion years, in excess of 95% have vanished, many of them in spectacular die-offs called mass extinctions. The permanent loss of large numbers of species over a relatively short period of geological time is known as a mass extinction. According to the fossil record, there have been five mass extinctions due to alterations in Earth's environment and atmosphere. Over half of all life on earth has been wiped out, repeatedly, during the past 500 million years. One cause is an oxygen-depleted ocean spewing poisonous gas as a result of planetary heating.
The natural background extinction rate for mammals and birds is one species lost every 500 to 1,000 years.(869) Species extinction is occurring at 100 times the natural rate, and is expected to accelerate to between 1,000 and 10,000 times in the coming decades.(870) The current rate of extinction may already be as high as 10,000 times the natural rate.(871) At the upper annual rate of 0.7%, thousands of species are disappearing each year. If that trend continues, it could lead to a loss of 75% of species, or mass extinction, by 2200.
According to the UNEP, the Earth is in the midst of the sixth mass extinction of life. This is due to neoliberal development policies and practices, which are based on reductionist, short-sighted, utilitarian views of nature. About 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. This is nearly 1,000 times the "natural" or "background" rate.
The current rate of biodiversity loss is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65 million years ago. And the losses are occurring all over the planet, from the South Pacific to the Arctic and from the deserts of Africa to mountaintops and valleys of the Himalayas.(872) Precious life is being loss in the oceans, land and air. Up to 50% of known vertebrate species died off in the last 50 years. And, the remaining 50% could die off in the next 40 years. Threatened with extinction are 33% of reef-building corals, fresh-water mollusks, sharks, and rays. Plus, 25% of plants and mammals, 20% of reptiles, and 14% of birds.(873)
Of 3,000 wild species tracked since 1970, the overall decline in wildlife populations was 52%.(874) Once populations drop below 50%, this may culminate in unstoppable, irreversible, cascading extinctions and collapse. Over 75% of species loss is a mass extinction, and the Earth is rapidly approaching this point. The IUCN survey of species threatened with extinction catalogs over 17,000 groups. The list contains one in four mammals, one in three amphibians, and one in eight birds.
The number is actually 50% higher because the survival of 6,300 non-threatened species depends on the existence of the threatened species cataloged. These figures may be much larger since only an extremely small proportion of possible and known species has been evaluated for threatened status. For land extinctions, the spread of agriculture has been the main driver, while overfishing and pollution have affected sealife. Species across land, rivers and seas are being decimated as humans kill for food in unsustainable numbers and destroy habitats. The fastest decline among the animal populations was in freshwater ecosystems, where numbers have plummeted by 75% since 1970.
The biggest declines in animal numbers were in developing nations. Conservation efforts in rich nations have seen small improvements, but the big declines in wildlife in rich nations occurred long ago. Even so, biodiversity is still in decline in developed countries. Case in point, farmland birds in the UK, such as gray partridge, have declined by 50% between 1970 and 2012, mainly due to an intensification in farming.
In effect, by importing food and other goods produced via habitat destruction in developing nations, rich nations are “outsourcing” wildlife loss to the global South. This represents yet another aspect of global neocolonialism. Over a third of all the products of deforestation, such as animal carcass and soy for livestock feed, were exported to the EU between 1990 and 2008. A 2°C (3.6°F) rise in warming may cause 15% to 40% of species becoming extinct.(875) If one species becomes extinct, this can have a chain-effect on others it interacts with. And, the extinction of a keystone species may cause a cascade of further extinctions.
Around US$25 billion is needed annually to achieve effective global conservation.(876) Biodiversity-related aid has been falling, and in 2002, five agencies spent only US$1.5 billion on conserving biodiversity. The World Bank, Global Environment Facility, IUCN, Nature Conservancy, and Wildlife Conservation Society spent half of this aid in the US alone.
At COP21 in Paris, Germany, Norway and the UK pledged to support rainforest conservation efforts with about $1 billion per year through 2020. While this is a great start, a sum of $10 billion per year is needed to fully protect the 1.5 billion acres of tropical rainforest remaining. This commitment level from the developed world is a good start, given tropical forest's potential to lower global warming. Conversion to alternatives to fossil fuels is necessary but will cost trillions of dollars. Conservation requires just a fraction of that total.
Pandemics Ahead: Number 6 in a series looking at the link between animal protein and global health disasters.
Excerpt from Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming by Moses Seenarine, (2016). Xpyr Press, 348 pages ISBN: 0692641157) http://amzn.to/2yn7XrC
Human carnivory is the single greatest threat to biodiversity.(863) Animal carcass and feedstock production are expanding quickly in biodiversity-rich developing countries. The sheer quantity of animals being raised for human consumption poses an enormous threat to the Earth's biodiversity. Livestock occupies up to 75% of all agricultural lands, 30% of Earth's land surface, and 20% of the total terrestrial animal biomass.(864)
The land area dedicated to producing domesticates was once habitat for wildlife. In 306 of the 825 terrestrial eco-regions, livestock is identified as "a current threat." And, 23 of Conservation International's 35 "global hotspots for biodiversity," characterized by serious levels of habitat loss, are affected by food animal production.(865) Much of the biodiversity loss due to agriculture is occurring in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South and South-East Asia.
Forests are either logged or burned to make room for grasslands, and often the area needed is extensive. Ruminant production can erode biodiversity through a dozen processes, namely (i) forest loss and degradation, (ii) land-use intensification, (iii) exotic plant invasions, (iv) soil erosion, (v) persecution of large predators, and (vi) competition with wildlife for resources. Deforestation can in turn create (vii) fragmentation, allowing only patches of habitat for species to live. If patches are distant and small, then (viii) gene flow is reduced and (ix) there will be a greater chance for invasive species to intrude. Fencing to convert an open range into ranches can (x) cut the migration routes of wild animals, and (xi) keep them away from waterholes. On top of this, (xii) fencing can trigger overgrazing by cattle. Also, hunting, fishing and other forms of exploitation are a major factor in declines in wildlife populations.(866)
The threat of extinction also affects food animals. Over 17% of the world's 8,774 agricultural breeds risk extinction. This is mostly due to the increasing worldwide use of non-native breeds and the neglect of breeds that are not “competitive” on the global market. Native food animals do not produce as much flesh, milk, eggs or other goods as the most popular commercial breeds.(867) There are a shocking 1,458 potential extinctions of all breeds of agricultural animals like cattle, goats, pigs, and chickens, due to disease, climate change, neglect, and inbreeding. Already 100 food animal breeds went extinct in this century.
Carbon footprints can serve as an approximate indicator of the environmental impact of domesticate production. One team comparing the carbon footprint (CF) and the volume of GHGs (greenhouse gas) emitted during the lifecycle of pig, chicken, and cow carcass production, discovered that how biodiversity is affected varies.(868) There can be contrasting effects from intensification. Higher intensities of production can allow larger areas to be left in its natural state. On the other hand, intensification involves greater use of pesticides, fertilizers, and monocropping locally, which threatens biodiversity around feed crops.
The CF of livestock acts as an indicator of acidification and eutrophication, as well. Improving the efficiency of nitrogen will lead to less eutrophying and acidifying substances being released into the environment, and to lower GHG pollution in N2O form. GHG mitigation strategies based on reduced livestock consumption likewise creates less acidification and eutrophication. Diminished GHG outflows due to lower food animal intake mean less land is required for feed production, so CF can act as a proxy for land use also. Although there are inconsistencies between CF of livestock and environmental impacts, CF can be used as part of the current momentum of carbon footprinting and pricing.
Worldwide, livestock overgrazing practices are substantially reducing many grasslands' performance as carbon sinks. Overgrazing occurs on 33% of all range-land, and often, marginal range-lands are used intensively when historically productive adjacent range has become overgrazed and unproductive. The cycle of overgrazing, soil degradation, topsoil erosion and loss of vegetation is rapidly expanding on all continents.
The chief ecological impacts of overgrazing are (i) the loss of biodiversity, (ii) irreversible loss of topsoil, (iii) strengthening of turbidity in surface waters, and (iv) greater flooding frequency and intensity. Overgrazing of pastureland leads to a decrease in long-term grazing productivity. In Botswana, for example, farmers' common practice of overstocking cattle to cope with drought losses made ecosystems further vulnerable and risked long-term damage to herds by depleting scarce biomass.
Globally, 70% of all grazing land in dry areas is considered degraded, mostly because of overgrazing, compaction and erosion attributable to livestock activity. Worldwide, overgrazing can be considered the major cause of desertification in arid dry-lands, tropical grasslands, and savannas. On top of that, in arid and semi-arid dry-lands around the globe, overgrazing is the major cause of desertification.
Placement of high densities of livestock on a grassland removes biomass at a rapid rate, which produces a series of accompanying effects. For instance, (i) the residual plants decline in mass density, and (ii) surface water infiltration is reduced. Then (iii) there is a dwindling away of fungal biomass that relies on grasses. Ground surface temperatures rise, which exaggerates the amount of (iv) evaporation and (v) transpiration, and this leads to (vi) a build up in aridity. In addition, overgrazing has a characteristic effect of (vii) reducing root depths. With impeded water uptake from the soil, a positive feedback loop of growth retardation is established.
At least 25% of the world's biodiversity lives underground where the earthworm is a giant alongside tiny organisms such as bacteria and fungi. These organisms act as the primary agents driving nutrient cycling, and they help plants by improving nutrient intake, which in turn supports above-ground biodiversity.
Removing livestock, and better soil and land management that supports healthy soil organisms can boost the soil's ability to absorb carbon and mitigate desertification. This could result in greater quantities of carbon being sequestered, thus helping to offset agriculture's own emissions of GHGs. A four-year survey of the northern China plains concluded that by reducing grazing pressure to half can deliver improved ecosystem services like lower GHGs and improved grassland composition. Early summer rest maintained the best grassland composition.
In the US, removing livestock from public lands would reduce CH4 discharges, with attendant benefits for climate mitigation. This climate action would also mirror federal nutrition policy, particularly the recommendation to eat less cow flesh. Much of the degraded environmental conditions on public lands and waters caused by grazing farm animals would end. This would enable improvement or even recovery of vulnerable areas. And, undertaking this policy shift makes fiscal sense by saving taxpayer dollars.
Why High-Density Grazing is an Unmitigated Climate and Social Disaster
by Moses Seenarine 11/20/17
Many supporters of animal farming question the significance of land degradation and GHG pollution from livestock grazing. They often cite Allan Savory's claim that livestock's damaging effects on soil and the climate can be controlled through “holistic management and planned grazing.” Savory's process purportedly allows domesticated herds to act as “a proxy for former herds and predators”, in trampling dry grass and leaving “dung, urine and litter or mulch.” This supposedly enables the soil to “absorb and hold rain, to store carbon, and to break down methane.”
Contrary to the scientific literature, Savory's popular theory to reverse desertification and return the atmosphere to preindustrial levels requires a massive enlargement in livestock production. Be that as it may, agricultural and environmental science suggests Savory's claim is simply not reasonable. For instance, the massive, ongoing additions of carbon into the atmosphere from human activity far exceed the carbon storage capacity of global grasslands.
Savory’s ultra-high stock density (UHSD) methods have garnered little support from agricultural science, and there are many researchers critical of his unscientific methods. One accuses him of piecing together false assumptions to produce ineffective but popular recommendations on climate mitigation.
Another scholar point to Savory’s numerous inconsistencies and varying methods. A review of experiments from 13 North American sites and additional data from Africa reveal there is little evidence for any of the environmental benefits which Savory claimed for his methods. Other researchers point out that intensive (cell) grazing is only viable where water points are close and labor is cheap. Temporary or permanent fencing is labor intensive, and moving herds daily requires more labor that most livestock operations cannot afford.
Nonetheless, the livestock industry and popular trade magazines are touting the miracle of ultra-high stock density (UHSD) grazing for small-scale farmers. Farming at amounts exceeding 1 million pounds (463,600 kg) of live animal per acre is far beyond the capacity of the family farm. At this high level of stock density, cattle have to be moved multiple times per hour, per grazing period. There is no known "magical" stock density value that expedites the desired outcomes, but the greater the stock density the bigger the herd impact. Farmers need to have capable pen and corral space, sufficient drinking water and recharge capabilities, effective fencing with quality energizer to carry electricity to extremities of the property, plenty of temporary electric fence supplies, and suitable equipment to quickly deploy them.
Due to herd impact, recovery periods are usually longer thus lengthening grazing cycles, especially in areas impacted during wet periods. Intrinsically, UHSD requires massive amounts of land and labor, and cannot be accomplished sustainability or by family farms. Emma Archer's review of 14 years of satellite imaging data in South Africa ascertained that Savory's intensive grazing practices caused lower levels of vegetation than traditional approaches, when rainfall is added.
Rather than the desertification outcome of UHSD, there is massive potential for reforestation in Africa if livestock is removed and the related savanna burning is stopped. Even though Savory's methods have been repeatedly debunked for many decades, it is popularly promoted by the food animal industry, environmentalists and many others, to justify environmentally destructive carnivory. In reality, UHSD causes severe land degradation which may have been a major factor in wars in Darfur and Syria. Far from being a solution, enlarging livestock production is an unmitigated climate and social disaster.
I am a father, educator and activist. I would like to discuss how we can eat for surviving climate change by considering less as more. Climate change in happening right now and may get far worse in the near future. This year, 2017, is on track to be the hottest year on record. If it is, it will steal the record from 2016, even though this is not an El Nino year. Before 2016, the hottest year was 2015; before 2015, the hottest year was 2014, and so on. Do you notice the pattern here?
The Earth has already surpassed one degree Celsius rise in temperature from 1700 levels, and we're on track to go well beyond the 2C limit aimed for in the 2015 Paris Climate Accord. The atmosphere now has more than 400 parts per million carbon dioxide, and the rate of increase is not slowing down. We may have already passed the point of safe return and it does not look good for my lifetime, and less so for my child. But giving up is not an option for either of us.
The good news is that it is not game over, yet. And since humans are the cause of climate change, we can also do something about it. For example, reducing our personal consumption is an effective way to minimize our greenhouse gas footprint. Each one of us have a new opportunity each day to make better choices in order to minimize our contribution to climate change. With education and awareness raising, it is possible to achieve significant reductions in emissions from diet, travel, and lifestyle. This is especially true for individuals in North America and Europe, who are by far the biggest consumers of energy, animal products, and cars in the world.
There is a tremendous upside to changing our over-consumption habits, and this alone should challenge each of us to reduce, reuse and recycle as much as we can each and every day. Less is more is so many ways, and we need to make conservation cool again. The less natural resources we consume in the present, is the more people will have access to in the future. The lower on the food chain that we consume with each meal, by eating plants instead of animals, the more biodiversity there will be to enjoy. Lower personal energy use, travel and meat intake equals less global heat, and reduced climate vulnerability.
Beyond the personal level, at the community and regional levels, one positive development is the ongoing transition to renewable energy. National policies are slowly shifting away from the use of fossil fuel in energy production and transportation. The 2015 Paris Climate Accord's target of two percent annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is a good start, and despite withdrawal by the American administration, most major cities and states are trying to do their part to lower US emissions. There is vast scope for improvement, and we are gradually turning the corner on the carbon economy and headed toward renewable energy.
The bad news is that even if individuals and countries cut down fossil fuel consumption to zero by 2050 or 2100, this will not stop global warming. Going 100 percent renewable will help to reduce greenhouse gas significantly, no doubt, but there is another ingredient in our consumption footprint that needs to be lowered as well.
That component is our diet, specifically greenhouse gases from animal production, which is around 15 percent of total emissions, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The footprint from our carnivorous habit is greater than transportation, including emissions from all cars, buses, boats and planes combined. Moreover, the FAO's 15 percent livestock figure exclude emissions from the seafood and pets industries, and deforestation. According to NASA, clearing land to raise livestock and feed crops is one of the leading causes of deforestation. So we are literally destroying the Earth’s lungs and precious ecosystems to raise farmed animals.
Like fossil fuel consumption, there has been a steady rise in meat intake, with attendant release of greenhouse gases. If fully accounted for, greenhouse gas from carnism may equal to that of energy production. But unlike efforts to limit the expansion of the carbon economy, the animal agriculture industry is promoted at all levels, while their emissions are being ignored by the scientific community and the popular media alike.
The farm animal industry produces more greenhouse gas than all of transportation, so it is not inconsequential. In addition to carbon dioxide, animal production emits half of the world’s emissions of methane, according to the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and the second major contributor to global warming.
Remarkably, emissions from farmed animals are excluded from the Paris Climate Accord, and global consumption is set to double by 2050. While it is critical for us to lower fossil fuel use in energy and transportation, unless these are accompanied by significant reductions in dietary emissions, humans will continue to drive catastrophic global warming.
Similar to the environmental and cultural devastation initiated by the production of oil tar sands in Canada, there are severe ecological consequences associated with animal production, including deforestation, habitat loss, species extinction, soil and water pollution, landlessness, poverty, disease, sickness and death. The impacts on soil, forests, and oceans reduces Earth's capacity for absorbing carbon dioxide and leads to even more rapid warming.
Soy is an important base ingredient of the world’s meat production, and approximately three quarters of the world’s soy goes to animal feed. Soy production has left an enormous scar on the Earth’s surface, more than 400,000 square miles (one million square kilometers), equivalent to the total combined area of France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. Jaguars, giant anteaters, sloths and thousands of other creatures have been affected in Brazil and elsewhere.
Bolivia lost 430,000 hectares of forest per year over the previous decade. Although Bolivia is one of the least economically developed countries in South America, its greenhouse gas emissions levels per capita equal or exceed those of many European countries. More than 80 percent of those emissions come from deforestation. Alarmingly, crop yields are set to decline with rising temperatures, so more land and water will have to be used in the future to grow the same amount of animal feed.
Despite its importance, diet and personal consumption is so taboo that climate scientists and environmental activists rarely make reference to this topic. Take for example, Bill McKibben and 350.org, the leading climate advocacy group in the world. The organization has conducted dozens of climate campaigns, including a 100 percent renewable energy crusade, but they do not have a single program to address agricultural emissions. This is not surprising considering that environmental activists and green organizers are avid consumers of animal flesh so there is a huge conflict of interest present.
Al Gore's two movies on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and “An Inconvenient Sequel,” have both omitted greenhouse gas emissions from carnism. Within mainstream climate activism, reducing demand for animal products is not presented as part of the solution. This view is short-sighted since the increasing dependence on animal products in diets worldwide is a major self-inflicted handicap in our capacity to successfully negotiate climate change. Maybe, instead of using vast amounts of water and land to grow crops to feed to animals, to then feed to people, if we just eat the crops instead we could save ourselves from hunger and global warming.
The scientific community is slowly coming around. James Hansen, former head of NASA and one of the world's most famous climate scientist is lead author of a 2017 article titled, "Young People’s Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions." The paper admits that ruminant production is a concern and added, "we would be remiss if we did not point out the potential contribution of demand-side mitigation that can be achieved by individual actions as well as by government policies."
America’s addiction to cheap meat, fed on corn and soy in vast indoor factories, comes at a high cost in human health problems and environmental destruction. None of these costs are paid for by the companies that produce the meat and feed, such as Tyson, Cargill and ADM. If the costs of pollution, habitat destruction, losses to fisheries and tourism, climate change and impacts on human health were fully accounted for, meat would be a luxury food.
The era of climate migration is here and rather than building walls, nations have to cooperate for climate mitigation and disaster recovery. The climate crisis is a global one that demands a global response. We can devolve into nationalist xenophobia or combine our efforts in a more effective international response. This crisis requires individual change and collective action, and maintaining an acute awareness in every choice we make that less is more.
