FacebookTwitterGoogle+YouTubePodcasts on iTunesPinterest
Banner
Banner

Livestock Production And Shorter-Lived Climate Forcers

Abstract

Shorter lived climate forcers have been recognised as a means of moderating dangerous global warming over the next 20 years, allowing time for necessary longer term carbon dioxide abatement measures to take effect. Annual emissions of three short lived agents: methane, black carbon and tropospheric ozone combined have a greater warming impact than carbon dioxide emissions each year. Reducing these three forcers offers a powerful means of slowing potentially dangerous climate change. This paper examines how changing just one human activity – livestock production – can substantially cut shorter lived climate forcers as well as legacy carbon dioxide now in our atmosphere. Livestock production is shown to be the single largest source of methane, black carbon and tropospheric ozone (by methane’s effect on the production process). Livestock production also offers a substantial low cost means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, since it is determined to be the largest driver of deforestation and the greatest cause of ‘open fires’ (burning of savannah lands and forests). Reducing livestock production is shown to draw down legacy carbon dioxide in natural, low cost processes of reforestation and building soil carbon. The climate impacts of this one industry offer a unique opportunity to stem global warming, giving the scientific andpolitical communities time to work on longer term solutions.

Introduction

Many researchers in the climate science community are coming to the realisation that the 2°C warming limit agreed in Cancun (UNFCCC, 2010) is unattainable by abatement of carbon dioxide emissions alone (Anderson & Bows, 2011; Betts et al., 2011). This has prompted a strong interest in the shorter lived climate forcers and led to an important report authored by 300 prominent researchers in this field (UNEP & WMO, 2011). This report demonstrates that while carbon dioxide abatement measures are essential for the longer term, the rate of climate change within the next 50 years can be slowed significantly by reducing emissions of just three warming agents: methane, black carbon and ozone.

World Preservation Foundation considers this to be a breakthrough report because it shows how limited mitigation of short lived warming agents will limit the earth’s warming to less than 2° by 2070, and importantly, it offers abatement measures that appear to be readily achievable. Indeed, this approach offers hope to many in the climate science community who are urgently seeking a means to slow warming enough to allow anticipated abatement measures to take effect.

In addition to measures identified in the United Nations Environment Programme and World Meteorological Organization (UNEP/WMO) report, here we offer a means to further reduce shorter lived climate forcers that will significantly enhance the effectiveness of these measures. We also offer a means to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions and draw down legacy emissions now in the atmosphere by low cost natural processes.

Shorter-Lived Climate Forcers

A reduction in shorter-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) would assist in stabilising the climate and allows more time to implement CO2 reductions. SLCF warming impacts and life-spans are:

  • Methane has a warming impact 72 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20 year time frame, but starts breaking down much quicker than CO2, with a half-life of only 7 years (Solomon et al., 2007).
  • Black carbon (BC) is an intense heating agent in the air and has a huge warming impact when BC particles land on ice masses. It is said that black carbon emissions are responsible for as much as 40% of the net global warming (Baron, Montgomery, & Tuladhar, 2009). However, they remain in the atmosphere from only one to four weeks (Pew Center, 2010).
  • Ground level ozone, or tropospheric ozone is another substantial greenhouse gas with an estimated warming impact equal to about 20 percent of that of carbon dioxide (Wallack & Ramanathan, 2009). It stays in the atmosphere for only around 20 days, is a contributor to smog and is a health concern (Stevenson, et al., 2006).

Figure1

Radiative forcing of the short-lived forcing agents is shown in Figure 1, taken from Table 2.22 in the of the IPCC 4th Assessment (Solomon et al., 2007). The lower half of the table (shown here) demonstrates how over the next 20 years the combined warming from methane, black carbon and ozone for year 2000 emissions exceeds the warming from CO2. Controlling these three agents therefore offers a very effective means to moderate global warming in the near term. This figure
shows the warming impact of each year’s emissions – it does not show the impact of legacy gases emitted in previous years.

In Figure 1, the gases labelled as “short-lived gases’ show the combined effect of tropospheric ozone. Methane here is labelled as “Long-lived”, however, compared to CO2 it is a much shorter-lived gas.

Limiting methane, black carbon and tropospheric ozone will not only reduce net warming but will have significant health benefits: helping prevent the 2.4 million premature deaths each year, mainly in third world nations; and large food security benefits: avoiding the loss of 1-4% of global crop production (UNEP & WMO, 2011).

Figure_2

Methane

Human sources of methane are well known: at least a third is from livestock raising (ruminants, biomass burning for pasture, and animal waste), about a third is escaped gas from coal mining, gas and oil refining, 10% is from rice cultivation, about 17% comes from waste, and a smaller percentage from land use and forestry as well as energy production (EDGAR V4.1, 2010), as shown in Figure 2. Significant natural methane emissions arise from wetlands, which also may be impacted by climate change.

Global warming from methane emissions alone are almost equal to the warming from CO2 emitted each year over the next 20 years (Solomon et al., 2007).This is why many efforts have been directed at reducing anthropogenic methane. Yet, methane mitigation efforts to date have had limited effect. Fugitive emissions from coal mining have been successfully captured in 220 mines in 14 countries, notably China and Australia, and the gas either used for energy or power, or burned off
to CO2 via flaring (Balusu et al., 2010). While laudable, this number of mines is in the minority, and gas capture is not possible in open cut mines.

Technological solutions are being actively sought to reduce enteric fermentation from ruminant animals. Adding different oils to feed may give a 6-12% reduction in methane for lot fed cattle (Beauchemin et al., 2008, McGinn et al., 2006, Pettus, 2009), however environmental impacts and greenhouse gas emissions from producing feed, somewhat negates these findings. Genetic modification is seen as another means of reducing enteric fermentation in cattle (Smith, 2007), but the decrease in methane output is minimal (Münger & Kreuzer, 2008), in addition GM cattle receive a negative consumer reaction.

Attempts at capturing methane from feedlot animal waste using anaerobic digesters have been somewhat successful, however, this addresses only 4% of global livestock methane (GMI, 2010) emissions, and as it is expensive technology it has not been widely adopted (GMI, 2011). Additionally, this type of technology is dependent on industrialized farming where animal waste can be consolidated, but intensive farming conditions present negative issues such as environmental concerns including water and air pollution, social problems for communities, threats to local public health, as well as the potential to breed pandemic diseases, such as swine flu and bird flu (Pew Commission, 2009). There is also a growing trend by consumers to avoid factory farmed meat based on animal welfare grounds (D’Silva, 2000; Dannenberg, 2011; Oogjes & Caulfield, 2008)

Researchers from both Dalhousie University and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have concluded that on balance technological solutions are not sufficient to reduce livestock emissions, drawing the clear conclusion that changes in human dietary patterns to reduce consumption of animal proteins will be necessary (Friel, et al., 2009; Pelletier & Tyedmers, 2010).

Clearly the most effective means of reducing methane emissions is to steeply reduce consumption of meat and dairy products, which can readily be replaced by plant-based alternatives that have a significantly lower ecological-footprint in comparison and have positive consumer reaction (Goodland & Anhang, 2009). This conclusion is doubly important given that methane abatement is the most effective means of limiting tropospheric ozone production (Fiore et al., 2008).

Black Carbon (BC)
Black carbon (soot), an intense warming agent, originates from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. The black particles cause warming in the atmosphere by absorbing sunlight and re-radiating heat. BC is released from diesel engine tailpipe emissions and biomass burning: cook stoves used mainly in developing nations; and open fires, that is, the burning of forests and savannas (Levine, 1994). Of these we know that the largest source, 42% of emitted BC, is from open fires (Bond, 2007, as cited in Baron et al., 2009), and that 80-90% of open fires are deliberately lit (Lauk & Erb, 2009).

The heating power of airborne BC is often balanced by co-emitted aerosols (Lamarque et al., 2010; Seinfeld, 2008). This is largely determined by the colour of the smoke: white smoke can be more cooling, and dark smoke more heating. In some cases, smoke clouds warm the atmosphere while cooling the surface, known as “global dimming”.

When BC lands on ice masses such as the Arctic and glacier regions, it causes rapid melting (Wallack & Ramanathan, 2009). A study by Dr. Drew Schindell at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies suggests that BC may be responsible for more than 30 percent of the most recent warming in the Arctic (ie: in the last 30 years), contributing to the acceleration of Arctic sea ice melting (Schindell & Faluvegi, 2009). Other ice masses known to be affected by BC deposits are the Himalayas, the Swiss Alps and Antarctica (Simoes & Evangelista, 2010).

Researchers at the Rio de Janeiro State University have recently discovered BC from biomass burning on the Antarctic Peninsula (Evangelista et al., 2006), the fastest warming region on earth. Over half of this BC is attributable to grazing management practices mostly from South America and up to 30% from Africa (Evangelista et al., 2006). This suggests that grazing practices are the most significant BC contributor to Antarctic melting.

Significant amount of South America’s BC, found in the Antarctic Peninsula, comes from biomas burning by the livestock industry which is responsible for about 80% of all deforestation in the Amazon region (Chomitz & Thomas, 2001).

BC mitigation efforts have focused on replacing cook stoves and brick kilns in developing countries with cleaner, more efficient ones, and installing filters on diesel exhausts (UNEP & WMO, 2011). These are key initiatives and will play an important role in improving air quality, abating some of the warming and addressing health concerns. However, the largest source of BC from open fires, largely due to livestock production, has not been fully addressed.

A study by Baron, Montgomery and Tuladhar of the Copenhagen Consensus Center (2009) calculated if programs to reduce open burning were implemented in Africa and South America these would provide a reduction of 80% of global black carbon emissions.

Figure3
Black carbon and open fire
NASA MODIS satellite data shows the global fire patterns every 10 days. Comparing Figure 3 and Figure 6 we see that fire patterns match deforestation patterns closely.

Fire retards tree regrowth and encourages pasture growth, and has been used for centuries for this purpose. A 2009 Austrian study found that 80-90% of open fires are deliberately lit, for pasture maintenance or crop residue burning (Lauk & Erb, 2009). A graphic example of how fire and fencing can be used to suppress regrowth is shown in Figure 4.

There are many myths of how fire has been an integral part of our landscape for centuries, and has been used by native populations as a means of hunting and shaping the landscape. An extensive study of 223 sedimentary charcoal records in the SE Asia, Australia and New Zealand region clearly shows no increase in fires with the arrival of aboriginal people, but does show a dramatic increase in fire in the last 200 years, coincident with European settlement, together with their grazing management practices (Mooney et al., 2011).

Globally, human-caused fires emit 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and much of this is not balanced by plant re-growth (van der Werf et al., 2009). Ceasing maintenance and deforestation fires would give immediate BC and CO2 emission savings.

Open fires also heavily impact human health and crop production. Brown clouds from fires in the tropics disturb the monsoonal rainfall, reduce global crop harvests by 1-4%, and when the effect of cooking fires is included, cause 2.4 million premature deaths each year (Lauk & Erb, 2009; UNEP & WMO, 2011)

Figure_4
Tropospheric Ozone
Ozone in the stratosphere is beneficial to our climate: it shields us from harmful solar radiation. However, when in the lower atmosphere it is a potent warming agent and is a large component of smog, where it causes severe respiratory-related illness (NRC, 1991; Prather et al. 2001). Ozone also inhibits plant growth by damaging plant cells and reducing chlorophyll production, seriously impacting crop yields (UNEP & WMO, 2011).

Ozone is created in a complex series of photochemical reactions when sunlight strikes atmospheric nitrogen oxides (from vehicles and natural sources), methane, carbon monoxide and various volatile organic compounds (NRC, 1991; Wallack & Ramanathan, 2009). It lasts in the atmosphere from several days to several weeks.

Ozone is also a powerful greenhouse gas, over 20 years heating 20% as much as all our CO2 emissions, as seen graphically in Figure 1. Wallack and Ramanathan (2009) estimated that reducing ozone alone will offset a decade’s carbon dioxide emissions. Ongoing research programs at Argonne Laboratories, Harvard, US EPA and elsewhere have determined that the most effective means of controlling ozone is by reducing methane (Fiore et al., 2008, West et al., 2007).

Since livestock production is responsible for one third of all anthropogenic methane emissions through enteric fermentation, pasture maintenance fires, and animal waste (EDGAR V4.0, 2009); it therefore offers the single greatest means of mitigating zone production.

Unprecedented impact of livestock

The scope of livestock impact is better understood when population numbers are examined. Livestock dominate global consumption, resource use, land use, land degradation and are a significant source of water and air pollution (UNFAO, 2006b). FAOSTAT data reveal that we breed 68 billion animals each year (2009 data), and that whereas humanity consumes just 12% of global appropriated net primary production (NPP), livestock consume 58% of NPP (Haberl et al., 2007).
Weight of livestock now exceeds wildlife by a factor of 8:1 (UNFAO, 2011) and palaeontologists have estimated that consumption by livestock is now six times that consumed by the mega fauna at their peak (Doughty & Field, 2010). We devote a quarter of the global land surface to livestock production and we feed them 45% of the world’s grain, while they provide just 17% of human energy intake (UNFAO, 2011).

Developed countries in the last fifty to sixty years have seen a dramatic increase in the consumption of animal products - meat, fish, eggs and dairy products. In 1950, world meat consumption was 47 million tonnes; by 2005 meat consumption rose to 284 million tonnes (Brown, 2006; UNFAO, 2011). This is a six-fold increase since 1950, while human population has only doubled within that time-frame. Human population, a focus of climate change debate, is clearly overshadowed by dangerous livestock overpopulation. The unprecedented climate impact from this activity should come as no surprise.

Several major reports have addressed this imbalance, including the 2006 FAO Livestock’s Long Shadow (UNFAO 2006b), which showed how we grow enough edible grain to provide 50% more than is required to feed every person on the planet. A paper by former and current World Bank researchers Goodland and Anhang (2009) determined livestock to be responsible for 51% of all anthropogenic greenhouse emissions. This paper drew criticism for including carbon dioxide from livestock respiration, estimated to make up more than a quarter of livestock emissions. However, knowing that each year we breed ten times the number of livestock as there are people on planet earth, and livestock weigh eight times that of total other wildlife, the sheer scale of this respiration (created by human intervention) makes this inclusion more valid.

Legacy carbon dioxide

As the UNEP/WMO (2011) report correctly identifies, a focus on short-lived climate forcers does not provide an alternative to carbon dioxide abatement, but rather slows the inevitable warming rate. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions and drawing down legacy emissions is still essential to avoid dangerous climate change. As we discuss here, forests and soil carbon provide a means of achieving both these aims.

Deforestation
The average deforestation rate for the last decade was 13 million hectares each year, equivalent to an area of 360x360km, larger than the US State of Indiana, per year. Most deforestation occurs in developing countries, the standout leader being Brazil (acounting for more than a quarter of global deforestation), followed by Indonesia (UNFAO, 2006a). Estimates vary, but Global Forest Resource Assessment data shows that deforestation is caused by: logging 10-15%; small holder agriculture 35-40%; cattle pasture 20-25% and large scale agriculture 15-20% (UNFAO, 2006a). Clearing for pasture and feed for livestock is responsible for between 60-80% of all clearing (after logging, land is often used for pasture) (McAlpine et al., 2009).

Emissions from deforestation are equivalent a quarter of greenhouse emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production (Houghton, 2009). A steep reduction in animal agriculture would therefore rapidly reduce these emissions and the associated soil carbon loss that occurs when forests are cleared to pasture then grazed (Lal, 2004).

Programs aimed at reducing deforestation such as REDD are focussed on Brazil, where pressure on forests to make way for grazing lands is immense. Brazil has 200 million cattle, and plans to double this number. Already, 65-70% of all Brazilian forest clearing is directly for cattle ranching and a further 20% for livestock feed crops (Chomitz & Thomas, 2001), therefore the demand for meat is in direct conflict with forests.

Slash and burn agriculture is the second largest cause of deforestation in regions such as Indonesia and parts of Africa. A 2010 USAID study in Madagascar found that if sustainable plant-based farming were adopted in place of traditional slash and burn methods, where crops were diversified and intensified, this led to a 20% increase in average income for farmers and a rapid reduction of forest clearing (USAID, 2010).

Figure_5

Reforestation and Soil Carbon Restocking
Reforestation offers a major opportunity to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Grazing lands cover as much as 25% of our planet’s land area (70% of all agricultural land) (UNFAO, 2006b), much of which was formerly forested. Most forests will regrow naturally from tubers, roots and seeds, presenting farms with an ongoing battle to maintain pasture, constantly re-clearing, ploughing and burning to kill forest regrowth. Figure 5 shows examples of natural regrowth in both arid open woodland and rainforest in Australia.

Although not yet widely seen as a fast-acting abatement measure, reforestation can re-stock carbon within 10 to 30 years and will continue developing into old-growth forest. Lal (2008) estimates that afforestation could sequester 25 gigatons of carbon between 2000 and 2050. Re-stocking of soil carbon (which can exceed above ground carbon) also occurs over the same time period, and can add as much as 50 to 66% of the historic soil carbon loss of 42 to 78 gigatons of carbon (Fisher et al., 2007; Lal, 2004). These two measures can draw down at least a decade of carbon dioxide emissions.

The FAO global forest assessment (Figure 6) clearly shows hotspots of deforestation, and also shows the surprisingly broad reforestation occurring in China, where in 1982 the government made the visionary decision to plant one billion trees each year. The Planting Holiday is still celebrated each March.

Figure_6

Adaptation and abatement costs

The US Natural Resources Defence Council has predicted the cost of unabated global warming (the cost of doing nothing) in the US to be $1.9 trillion annually, half of which will be from hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs and water costs (Ackerman & Stanton, 2008). If warming is restrained to just 2ºC, the World Bank (2010) estimates adaptation costs will be $75-100 billion per year between 2010-2050. Both these estimates assume that climate change will be manageable, not catastrophic. Widely-cited McKinsey modeling of abatement cost found the cost of limiting warming to 2ºC to be less than 1% of GDP, or €200 to €350 billion annually by 2030 (McKinsey, 2009). Abatement measures drawn on for this study include energy efficiency, alternative energy, limiting fugitive emissions, carbon capture and storage, avoided deforestation, minor reforestation and some agriculture measures, among others.

Although the McKinsey estimate seems quite appealing given the alternative, the cost of climate abatement proposed here is even more attractive. A 2009 study by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (Stehfest, 2009) calculated that a global transition to a low-meat diet would reduce climate change mitigation costs by about 50%. A no-meat diet would reduce mitigation costs by 70% while an animal-products free diet would reduce costs by 80%.

Arguably, a steep reduction in livestock production will actually result in cost savings. Ironically, given its major impact on climate, livestock production still enjoys extensive government subsidies. Holm and Jokkala (2007) estimated the EU’s subsidies to the livestock sector to be €3.5 billion in 2007. They concluded that the EU should: “Abolish meat subsidies, let meat bear its own environmental costs and work to make modern vegetarian food cheaper” (Holm & Jokkala, 2007, p.6).

If all livestock production ceased, there would be a global oversupply of food (UNFAO 2006b). Certain industries would undergo major expansion: manufacture of meat and dairy analogues is rapidly growing, and the market for carbon sequestration (once carbon markets expand) will incentivize landholders to turn over pasture to trees. Rangelands and savannah now used exclusively for (or suitable only for) livestock raising could be turned over to reforestation and soil carbon restocking.

Flow on effects
Immediate benefits from reducing livestock production would be felt in human health, from reductions in airborne soot, ozone and its associated smog, and a more plant-based diet will lower incidence of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. (Campbell & Campbell 2006)

The monsoon rainfall and crop production in the tropics would be expected to increase in line with a reduction in the brown cloud, as open fires are reduced. The growth-retardant effect of ozone will also be moderated.

As many reports have concluded, a steep reduction in livestock will result in substantial environmental benefits. Soil degradation, erosion and soil salinity will improve, and polluting nutrient runoff that leads to algal blooms and ocean dead zones will be cut substantially. The current biodiversity crisis will slow, since the largest driver is loss of habitat from deforestation. A Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency study in 2010 found that if humanity adopted a plant-based diet, over 60% of biodiversity loss could be prevented (NEAA, 2010).

Shorter-lived climate forcers provide hope

The new UNEP/WMO (2011) assessment report on the SLCFs has been welcomed by the climate science community and governments worldwide. The United States Department of State has commended the report saying that: “action on short-lived climate forcers is important to protect our climate system and human health and the environment” (Reifsnyder, 2011).

Scientists and researchers specialising in SLCFs have been successful in communicating the emerging science to policy makers through such initiatives as the Climate Institute’s parallel program during the COP16 talks – a crucial advancement in supporting governments and community bodies to take action. As a result, it appears that addressing and limiting the shorter-lived warming agents to mitigate global warming in the near-term is achievable. Already, efforts are underway to lessen BC emissions, like Project Surya, a small scale initiative in India which provides inexpensive solar and other energy-efficient cookers (Baron et al., 2009).

An extensive amount of SLCFs could be reduced through bigger initiatives aimed at decreasing livestock numbers thereby reducing methane and ozone, and the burning of forests and savannahs for pasture maintenance. As mentioned above, the study by the Copenhagen Consensus Center (Baron et al., 2009) calculated a reduction of 80% of global black carbon emissions could be achieved if programs to cut down on open burning were implemented in Africa and South America. This percentage would likely be greater if the open burning reduction programs were extended to Southeast Asia and Russia.

Livestock reduction offers the most effective, least cost option for reducing both short lived climate forcers and for drawing down legacy carbon dioxide.

Livestock production is the single greatest anthropogenic source of methane; fires for pasture maintenance and deforestation are the single greatest source of black carbon; and reducing methane production is the best means we have to reduce tropospheric ozone. Steep reductions in livestock numbers would provide a rapid solution to achieve and exceed the 0.5°C projected by UNEP/WMO through limited mitigation of methane, black carbon and ozone.

Additionally, a bold reduction in livestock numbers would:

  • Sharply reduce global deforestation (25% of global emissions);
  • Sharply reduce open fires (15% of global emissions);
  • Free up 70% of agricultural land to reforestation and soil carbon
  • re-stocking (equivalent to at least 10 years of emissions);
  • Reduce climate mitigation costs by up to 80% (Stehfest et al., 2009);
  • Reduce biodiversity loss by up to 60% (NEAA, 2010);
  • Sharply reduce water use, soil degradation, and desertification;
  • Improve human health (Friel, et al., 2009).

Consequently, we suggest the following urgent policy imperatives:

  • Halt “perverse subsidies” (UNEP, 2010) subsidies on livestock
  • production
  • Promote plant-based alternatives
  • Protect and restore regrowth forests in grazing lands and reduce
  • anthropogenic open burning
  • Fund alternative land uses such as tree carbon sequestration and
  • organic farming.

Flower

Until recently, livestock production has not been given the attention warranted by its greenhouse emissions and considerable environmental impact. The weight of evidence is now so strong that this activity can no longer be ignored or assigned to the “too difficult” category. Once our attention is focussed on the many impacts of livestock, the necessity of a major shift in approach becomes evident. This has recently been underlined by the UNEP report Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production that states: “A substantial reduction of [climate/environmental] impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products” (UNEP, 2010, p.82).

World Preservation Foundation sees a major shift in agricultural production resulting from a move away from livestock production. We realize that this impact will be felt widely, and do not intend to trivialize these issues. However, of all sectors of our communities, farmers are arguably the most adaptable. Not only do they respond quickly to changes in consumer demand, they commonly deal with the vagaries of weather, commodity prices and now climate change. Of course, there will be large re-alignment within agricultural communities that will necessitate adaptation support programs.

Overall, we believe that the less animal product consumed the more plant-based food will be in demand thus creating more jobs in the plant-food sector. We do see that subsidies and abatement funds could be redirected into ‘Just Transition’ funds to help farmers and other affected communities shift towards greener organic practices.

Strong personal and government steps will be needed to reap the full benefits of this ambitious goal. Changing diet can be a challenge. Even though it seems to be a personal issue, we can no longer consider it to be so when the consequences of consuming meat and dairy are so far reaching and the need for action is imperative.

We believe, however, that this course of action offers great hope for a fast-acting, long lasting, low cost solution to global warming.

This article was taken from the Livestock Production And Shorter-Lived Climate Forcers Report from The World Preservation Foundation

(download the PDF by clicking on the Report name above)

GerardGerard Wedderburn-Bisshop is the Executive Director of The World Preservation Foundation who aim to be an access-point for information to assist media and concerned parties to engage and to encourage governments, public bodies and other institutions to introduce beneficial legislation and policies resulting in the subsequent mitigation of climate change and minimization of associated human, planetary and economic costs.

LefkotheaLefkothea Pavlidis has a Masters Degree in Geomatics Science with over 10 years experience in the various disciplines of the geomatics field including remote sensing of natural resources, geographic information systems, measurement and mapping. Her specialized skills are now focused on research into humans’ impact on the environment and climate change for the World Preservation Foundation where she is a Senior Scientist.

References

Ackerman, F. and Stanton, E, (2008, May). The Cost of Climate Change, Natural Resources Defense Council. Retrieved from: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf

Anderson, K, and Bows, A. (2011, January 13) Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission scenarios for a new world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369(1934). doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0290

Balusu, R., Moreby, R. and Yarlagadda, S. (2010, March). Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions from Coal Mines: A Review of Australian Perspective. Presented at M2M Expo, Delhi. Retrieved from: http://www.globalmethane.org/expo/docs/postexpo/coal_yarlagadda.pdf

Baron, R. E., Montgomery, W. D. and Tuladhar, S. D. (2009, August 14). An Analysis of Black Carbon Mitigation as a Response to Climate Change. Copenhagen Consensus Center. Retrieved from: http://fixtheclimate.com/uploads/tx_templavoila/AP_Black_Carbon_Baron_Montgomery_Tuladhar_v.4.0.pdf

Beauchemin, K. A., Kreuzer, M., O’Mara, F., McAllister, T. A. (2008). Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48(1-2), 21–27. doi:10.1071/EA07199

Betts, R. A., Collins, M., Hemming, D.L., Jones, C.D., Lowe J.A., and Sanderson, M.G., (2011, January 13). When could global warming reach 4°C. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369(1934). doi: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0292

Bond, T.C. (2007, October 18). Testimony for the Hearing on Black Carbon and Climate Change. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, p 2.

Brown, L.R. (2006). Feeding Seven Billion Well. Plan B 2.0 Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble (pp. 163-181) NY: W.W. Norton & Co

Campbell, T.C. and T.M. Campbell II, (2006) The China Study. The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Los s and Long-Term Human Health. Benbella Books, Dallas. TX. http://www.thechinastudy.com/

Chomitz, K.M. and Thomas, T.S. (2001). Geographic Patterns of Land Use and Land Intensity in the Brazilian Amazon. Development Research Group, World Bank, with contributions by IBGE, University of Washington CAMREX Project, and IMAZON. Retrieved from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/11/06/000094946_01101904382119/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

Dannenberg, N. (2011, January 22). Protesters in Berlin call for an end to factory farming. Deutsche-Welle. Retrieved from: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14780207,00.html

Doughty, C. and Field, C.B., (2010). Agricultural net primary production in relation to that liberated by the extinction of Pleistocene mega-herbivores: an estimate of agricultural carrying capacity? Environmental Research Letters, 5. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/044001

D’Silva, J. (2000, January). Factory Farming and Developing Countries. A Compassion in World Farming Trust briefing. Retrieved from: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/f/factory_farming_and_developing_countries_2000.pdf

EDGAR 4.1 (2010). Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), release version 4.1. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). Retrieved from: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europe.eu

Evangelista, H., Maldonado, J., Godoi, R. H. M., Pereira, E. B., Koch, D., Tanizaki-Fonseca, K., Van Grieken, R., Sampaio, M., Setzer, A., Alencar, A., Gonçalves, S. C. (2006). Sources and Transport of Urban and Biomass Burning Aerosol Black Carbon at the South–West Atlantic Coast. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, 56(3), 225-238. doi: 10.1007/s10874-006-9052-8

Fiore, A. M., West, J. J., Horowitz, L. W., Naik, V. and Schwarzkopf, M. D. (2008). Characterizing the tropospheric ozone response to methane emission controls and the benefits to climate and air quality, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D08307, doi:10.1029/2007JD009162

Fisher, M.J., Braz, S.P., Dos Santos, R.S.M., Urquiaga, S., Lves, B.J.R. and Bodde, R.M. (2007). Another dimension to grazing systems: Soil carbon. Tropical Grasslands, 41, 65–83. http://www.tropicalgrasslands.asn.au/Tropical%20Grasslands%20Journal%20archive/PDFs/Vol_41_2007/Vol_41_02_2007_pp65_83.pdf

Friel, S., Dangour, A. D., Garnett, T., Lock, K., Chalabi, Z., Roberts, I., Butler, A., Butler, C. D., Waage, J., McMichael, A. J., Haines, A. (2009, November 25). Public Health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: food and agriculture. The Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61753-0

GMI (2010). Global Methane Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities, Global Methane Initiative (GMI). Retrieved from: http://www.globalmethane.org/documents/analysis_fs_en.pdf

GMI (2011). Refer to ‘Country Action Plans’. Global Methane Initiative (GMI). Retrieved from: http://www.globalmethane.org/agriculture/index.aspx

Goodland, R., and Anhang, J., (2009, Nov/Dec). Livestock and Climate Change, World Watch Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

Haberl, H., Erb, K.H., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Bondeau, A., Plutzar, C., Gingrich, S., Lucht, W., and Fischer-Kowalski M. (2007, July 31). Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(31). doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704243104

Holm, J., Jokkala, T. (2007). The livestock industry and climate - EU makes bad worse. Retrieved from: http://www.jensholm.se/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/meat_climate_report.pdf

Houghton, R. (2009). Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Changes 1850-2005. The Woods Hole Research Center, Retrieved from: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/houghton.html

Houweling, S., Kaminski, T., Dentener, F., Lelieveld, J. and Heimann, M. (1999). Inverse modeling of methane sources and sinks using the adjoint of a global transport model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104(D21), 26137-26160. Retrieved from: http://europa.agu.org/?uri=/journals/jd/1999JD900428.xml&view=article

IPCC (2001). Chapter 4: Atmospheric Chemistry and Greenhouse Gases. Third Assessment Report. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#4211

Lal, R. (2004, June 11). Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security. Science, 304(5677). Doi: 10.1126/science.1097396

Lal, R. (2008, February). Carbon Sequestration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363(1492). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2185

Lamarque, J.F., Bond T. C., Eyring V., Granier C., Heil, A., Klimont, K., Lee, D., Liousse, C., Mieville, A., Owen, B., Schultz, M. G., Shindell, D., Smith, S. J., Stehfest, E, Van Aardenne, J., Cooper, O. R., Kainuma, M., Mahowald, N., McConnell, J. R., Naik, V., Riahi, K., and van Vuuren, D. P. (2010). Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions. doi:10.5194/acpd-10-4963-2010

Lauk, C., Erb, K.H. (2009). Biomass consumed in anthropogenic vegetation fires: Global patterns and processes. Ecological Economics, 69(2), 301-309. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.003

Levine, J.S. (1994). Chapter 9: Biomass Burning and the Production of Greenhouse Gases. In Zepp, R.G. (Ed) Climate Biosphere Interaction: Biogenic Emissions and Environmental Effects of Climate Change. Retrieved from: http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/biomass_burn/biomass.html

McAlpine, C.A., Etter, B., Fearnside, P.M. and Laurance, W.F. (2009). Increasing world consumption of beef as a driver of regional and global change: A call for policy action based on Evidence from Queensland (Australia), Colombia and Brazil. Global Environmental Change, 19(1). doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.008

McGinn, S. M., Beauchemin, K. A., Iwaasab, A. D. and McAllister, T. A. (2006). Assessment of the Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) Tracer Technique for Measuring Enteric Methane Emissions from Cattle. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35(5). Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16899740

McKinsey & Company (2009, January). Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. Retrieved from: https://solutions.mckinsey.com/ClimateDesk/default.aspx

Mooney, S. D., Harrison, S.P., Bartlein, P.J., Daniau, A. L., Stevenson, J., Brownlie, K.C., Buckman, S., Cupper, M., Luly, J., Black, M., Colhoun, E., D’Costa, D., Dodson, J., Haberle, S., Hope, G.S., Kershaw, P., Kenyon, C., McKenzie, M., Williams, N. (2011, January). Late Quaternary fire regimes of Australasia, Quaternary Science Reviews, 30(1-2), 28-46. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.10.010

Münger,A., Kreuzer, M. (2008, Januray 2). Absence of persistent methane emission differences in three breeds of dairy cows. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48(2), 77–82 doi:10.1071/EA07219

NEAA (2010). Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies: Exploring structural changes in production and consumption to reduce biodiversity loss. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NEAA) (PBL). Retrieved from: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500197001.pdf

NRC, (1991). Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution. National Research Council (NRC). Washington D.C: National Academy Press.

Oogjes, G. and Caulfield, M. (2008, April 29). Inquiry into Meat Marketing. Submission by Animals Australia to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. Retrieved from: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/meat_marketing/submissions/sub22.pdf

Pelletier, N. and Tyedmers, P. (2010, October). Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000–2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1004659107

Pettus, A. (2009, December). Methane: Tapping the Untapped Potential. Clean Air Task Force, Boston. Retrieved from: http://www.catf.us/resources/whitepapers/files/Methane-Tapping_the_Untapped_Potential.pdf

Pew Center (2010, April). What is Black Carbon? Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Retrieved from: http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/blackcarbon-factsheet

Pew Commission (2009, August). Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. Pew Commission on Industrial Animal Farm Production. Retrieved from: http://www.ncifap.org/bin/e/j/PCIFAPFin.pdf

Prather, M. J., and Ehhalt, D. (2001). Chapter 4. Atmospheric Chemistry and Greenhouse Gases. In J.T. Houghton et al., (Eds), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (pp. 239-287). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Reifsnyder, D. A. (2011). Side Event on “Quick Impact on Climate Change: The Option of Reducing Short-lived Climate Forcers”. Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved from: http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/remarks/2011/157038.htm

Schindell, D. and Faluvegi, G. (2009, March 31). Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the twentieth century. Nature Geoscience. doi: 10.1038/NGEO473

Seinfeld, J. (2008, January). Black carbon and brown clouds. Nature Geoscience, 1. Retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/pdf/ngeo.2007.62.pdf

Simoes, J. and Evangelista, H. (2010, November 3). Black Carbon: Signal of global pollution and its impact on ice masses. Presentation at the Leaders Preserving Our Future: Pace and Priorities on Climate Change conference, Westminster UK. Retrieved from: http://www.worldpreservationfoundation.org/events.php?id=11

Smith, L. (2007, July 10). How to stop cows burping is the new field work on climate change. The Times. Retrieved from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2051364.ece

Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M. and Miller, H.L. (Eds.) (2007). Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK & NY: Cambridge University Press.

Stehfest, E., Bouwman. L., van Vuuren, D. P., Michel, G. J., den Elzen, M. G. J., Eickhout, B., Kabat, P. (2009). Climate Benefits of Changing Diet. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Climatic Change, 95. doi 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6

Stevenson, D. S., Dentener, F. J., Schultz, M. G., Ellingsen, K., van Noije, T. P. C., Wild, O., Zeng, G., Amann, M., Atherton, C. S., Bell, N., Bergmann, D. J., Bey, I., Butler, T., Cofala, J., Collins, W. J., Derwent, R. G., Doherty, R. M., Drevet, J., Eskes, H. J., Fiore, A. M., Gauss, M., Hauglustaine, D. A., Horowitz,L. W., Isaksen, I. S. A., Krol, M. C., Lamarque, J.-F., Lawrence, M. G., Montanaro, V., Müller, J.-F., Pitari, G., Prather, M. J., Pyle, J. A., Rast, S., Rodriguez, J. M., Sanderson, M. G., Savage, N. H., Shindell, D. T., Strahan, S. E., Sudo, K., Szopa, S. (2006). “Multimodel ensemble simulations of present-day and near-future tropospheric ozone” Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, D08301, 2006. Retrieved from: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006338.shtml

The World Bank (2010, August 3). Synthesis Report of the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change. The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/documents/EACCSynthesisReport.pdf

UNEP (2010, June). Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). Retrieved from: http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/documents/pdf/PriorityProductsAndMaterials _Report_Full.pdf

UNEP and WMO (2011). Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone: Summary for Decision Makers. United Nations Environment Programme and World Meteorological Organization (UNEP & WMO). Retrieved from: http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/Black_Carbon.pdf

UNFAO (2006a). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 FAO Forestry Paper 147, UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (UNFAO). Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/A0400E/A0400E00.pdf

UNFAO (2006b). Livestock’s Long Shadow. UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (UNFAO). Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf

UNFAO (2011). FAOSTAT - United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation Statistical Databases. Retrieved from: http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx

UNFCCC (2010) The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, COP 16 / CMP 6, 29 November - 10 December 2010. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Retrieved from: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_16/items/5571.php

USAID (2010). Slashing “Slash-and-Burn” Agriculture. USAID from the American People. Retrieved from: www.usaid.gov/stories/madagascar/ss_mdg_slash.html

Wallack, J.S., and Ramanathan, V. (2009, September/October). The Other Climate Changers: Why Black Carbon and Ozone Also Matter. Foreign Affairs, 88(5), Retrieved from: http://www.projectsurya.org/storage/WallackRam_FApp105-2009.pdf

West, J. J., Fiore, A. M., Naik, V., Horowitz, L. W., Schwarzkopf, M. D. and Mauzerall, D. L. (2007, March). Ozone air quality and radiative forcing consequences of changes in ozone precursor emissions. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L06806. doi:10.1029/2006GL029173.

van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., Collatz, G. J., Mu, M., Kasibhatla, P. S., Morton, D. C., De Fries, R. S., Jin, Y., and van Leeuwen, T. T. (2010). Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009), Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, doi:10.5194/acpd-10-16153-2010.

 

VIP members of Viva La Vegan! can add to this section


© Viva La Vegan!Using Green Hosting | Site by DesignVoodoo.com
  • tweet
    @Engine2Diet check your emails for one from me please
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia Licence Creative Commons Licence