The Green New Deal recently introduced in Congress signals a new political focus on climate change. A document accompanying the proposal singled out several areas due for radical upheaval over the next 10 years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One of them, oddly, was cows.
The idea that livestock are contributing to global warming in a significant way dates to a decade-old United Nations report claiming that animal agriculture was responsible for as much global emissions as transportation. It’s time to clear the air: Cows (and pigs, and chickens) are not a climate threat.
The notion that livestock emissions should even be a target of Green New Deal is questionable, as livestock accounts for only 5 percent of global emissions, and 3.3 percent in the U.S. Beef in particular has reduced emissions per pound of meat produced by about 10 percent since the 1970s.
The US agriculture sector as a whole has also dropped its output of emissions by nearly a third of what it was 10 years ago. The addition of more bureaucratic regulation is unnecessary and would likely hinder the progress that has been made.
America is making great strides to reduce emissions. In fact, since 2005 Americans have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by a total of 760 million metric tons. That same study also found that the U.S. is second in its overall use of renewable energy. The U.S. was ranked us in the top 15 percent of countries in a recent report measuring environmental sustainability.
The focus should be how to best help developing nations, which account for 63 percent of carbon emissions. According to the World Energy Outlook, industrialized nations are expected to continue to decrease in greenhouse gas emissions while developing nations are expected to nearly double their output.
The strides that have been made have not been due to wide-reaching government mandates such as Green New Deal, but rather innovation from concerned companies who like the rest of the world want to survive. Instead of focusing on implementing harsh regulation, the U.S. should foster this growth and help export the cutting edge technologies developed to help developing nations.
These very American farmers facing the critique of Green New Deal are the same ones who have been making improvements in farming techniques and technology in order to reduce emissions and waste. Smithfield Foods worked with an environmental group to convert biogas to energy, a move that’s impact is equivalent to eliminating carbon dioxide emissions from more than 700,000 homes. In January, Tyson Foods started a sustainability program that will make farmers more profitable, improve water quality, and reduce emissions.
The Green New Deal also misses the big picture: Livestock farming will continue to rise as global populations increase. And according to research by UC Davis Professor Frank Mitloehner, to decrease emissions attributed to the agriculture industry the focus should be on improving farming practices used by developing nations and to cut down usage of nonrenewable energy sources in developed nations.
In contrast, history shows us that when governments focus on centralized economic plans—take Venezuela and North Korea for two recent examples—food production suffers. People suffer.
There are two ways forward. The Green New Deal relies on the government reaching into almost every aspect of American life — not just to curtail cows, but air travel, building materials, and the power grid.
In contrast, we can allow and invest in technologies that allow for more environmentally efficient ways to have our cake — or cow — and eat it, too.
One of these options sounds a lot more appetizing than the other.