Noah Grolnick: Cows and Climate Change
When most sensible policy makers and Americans at large debate climate change, two central ideas come to mind. First, carbon dioxide emissions are what are causing climate change. Second, the burning of fossil fuels is by and large the culprit for these emissions. However, an important contributor to climate change is often overlooked. The United States is the world’s largest producer of beef and the world’s second largest producer of dairy products.[i], [ii] What do cows have to do with global climate change? The rather strange answer deals with belching and flatulence. Cows, along with goats and sheep, fall under the category of ruminants.[iii] Ruminants are unique in that they contain four stomach compartments. One of these compartments, the rumen, produces and releases a relatively large amount of methane and carbon dioxide.[iv]
Although the majority of the gas released by cows is carbon dioxide, this carbon dioxide amounts to a relatively small proportion of total US emissions of the gas.[v] However, both beef and dairy cows are by far the largest methane emitters of all domestic animals.[vi] Methane released by both beef and dairy cows amounts to 25% of total US methane emissions.[vii] Methane only represents 9% of all US greenhouse gas emissions while carbon dioxide amount to 82%.[viii] However, methane is, by a conservative estimate, 20 times stronger a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide.[ix] This is why even small amounts of methane emissions are so troubling.
Thus, reducing methane emissions from cows will be critical in both America and the world’s attempt to address climate change. In June of 2014, the White House and the EPA proposed voluntary measures for dairy and beef cow farmers designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cows by 25% by 2020.[x] The central theme of these measures is to reduce emissions by changing the food cows eat. Increasing the efficiency in how cows process nutrients to produce milk or meat can help to reduce methane emissions.[xi] Feeding cows “high quality, highly digestible forages or grains” such as alfalfa and clovers can assist in doing this.[xii],[xiii] Some research has suggested that feed additives such as ionophores can also improve this efficiency and suppress acetate production, which in turn reduces hydrogen and thus methane production in the rumen.[xiv] In addition, the grinding and pelleting of forages and dietary fat supplements has been shown to reduce methane emissions.[xv]
It is important to note that these measures have not been shown to definitively reduce methane emissions from cows in the long run. This is likely why the White House and the EPA proposed them as voluntary strategies. However, if the United States is serious about addressing climate change, it should consider going beyond recommendations. At the very minimum, the US government should invest in research to study these measures further and to develop more strategies to reduce methane emissions from cows. Some strategies in development that would benefit from government funding include the introduction of acetogenic bacteria that remove hydrogen from the rumen and vaccines that stimulate antibodies in the rumen to help reduce methane production.[xvi] Even though the science may not be completely settled in terms of whether these measures are completely effective, given the rather imminent threat of severe climate degradation without significant action to address climate change in the next decade, the cost of inaction may outweigh this uncertainty.[xvii]
The US government could also consider subsidizing farmers who utilize methane reducing measures and taxing those who do not. However, even in a political climate that was favorable to passing legislation to address climate change (or in which there was even a consensus that climate change is man-made), any kind of tax on ranchers or dairy farmers would not be politically feasible. For one, there are many interest groups that represent them who would vehemently oppose any such policy.[xviii] Additionally, the beef and dairy industries are extremely profitable and thus politically powerful. Campaign contributions to senators and congressmen from the industries were extremely influential in crafting the USDA Farm Bill.[xix] Thus, any sort of tax would likely not even see the floor of the House or Senate. However, subsidies could be less difficult to pass and may even be seen favorably by these interests given that they represent a giveaway to dairy farmers and ranchers. Nonetheless, whether through legislation or EPA regulatory authority, something must be done to address methane emissions from cows if the United States is serious about addressing climate change.
Jennifer comment:
I have read that some farmers are using new technologies to capture the methane produced by cows. They have designed “methane backpacks” that are essentially storage bags the cows can wear on their backs, and these backpacks capture all the methane released by the cow. Once it has been captured, the methane can then be used as an energy source. I think this is a really promising idea in that it not only makes use of the methane gas produced by the cows, but also reduces energy demands from non-renewable fossil fuels. Technically speaking, this cow methane energy is renewable, although I’m not sure how efficient it actually is. However, if the cows are being raised anyways for milk or meat, this methane gas is essentially a free byproduct. I believe the idea is still in the preliminary stages, and I’m not sure how much it would cost for a farmer to purchase the technology, but it seems like it would actually have economic benefits to farmers in the long-run. The captured methane gas could be used to meet the energy needs of the farm, thereby reducing their energy costs, and any additional gas could potentially be sold to energy companies at a profit. The only real downside I see to this solution is that it does nothing to discourage the continued farming and consumption of beef. Meat is incredibly inefficient, requiring massive energy inputs to produce small energy outputs. Given the growing world population and the rising demand for food, I think it will be necessary to reduce our production and consumption of meat in the future.
Randy comment:
This is an interesting topic that I knew little about prior to reading this post. I had no idea that industrial cattle account for 25% of US methane emissions. New strategies such as the acetogenic bacteria treatment will be difficult to implement on a large scale due to the massive size of this industry. Another solution to this problem could be methane capture and storage. However, like carbon sequestration, this is a new technology and is still expensive to implement. Like you mentioned, without regulation and enforcement, voluntary programs are not economical for cattle farmers. What about implementing a cap and trade market based tactic so that farmers across the nation can trade methane shares for monetary value. This would require a federal regulatory agency that can record and enforce methane emissions based off of herd size. Similarly, other strategies to reduce beef consumption in the US such as “meatless mondays” can help to reduce methane emissions from cattle across the country.
David comment:
While I believe (unfortunately) that you are very much right about the farm bill being untouchable at this moment, I think that there are feasible political actions to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and inequality that Farm Bill subsidies create. First, take renewable energy grants: many of them, through the same Climate Action Plan that you mentioned in the blog, are being put to create anaerobic digesters to capture methane in cow and hog waste to burn for energy, which reduces the environmental impact of the waste A LOT. It turns atmospheric methane into CO2, which as you mentioned is less than 20 times as potent of a greenhouse gas, and it helps to sanitize the waste, leading to less likelihood of disease and eutrophication of waterways. Second, take raising the minimum wage coupled with fresh produce subsidies/crop insurance: although it doesn’t sound like much, it would increase the range of products able to be bought by many Americans, which has been shown to lead to healthier options being taken. It would also affect many farm workers and slaughterhouse workers, which would in turn increase the price of meat and decrease consumption. Third, international treaties: while the US is the second largest cattle producer now, meat consumption (and therefore methane production) is growing rapidly around the world. International agreements on meat prices, subsidizes, and ending hunger might stand more of a chance to persuade the US to change its farming laws than internal pressure at this point. Anyway, I thought it was a great blog post, Noah, and I definitely agree that something should be done about the environmental impacts of raising cows!
Annie comment:
This was a very interesting read, for I have had no prior knowledge of methane emissions from cows. I have read a lot about why we should decrease our consumption of meat and beef in particular, but this is a fresh take. You make a very strong argument as to why the government should take this as a serious solution to climate change. By going beyond “traditional” recommendations, the government can work towards a definitive solution that will actually accomplish something. I think your idea of subsidies is an easy and efficient way to incentivize farmers to reduce the amount of methane released. It is also interesting to know that cows are the largest emitters of methane of any domestic animal in the United States. It makes sense but it is something that I would not have thought about before. I am surprised that beef and dairy cows comprise 25% of methane emissions in the US. I would have thought the number would be a lot smaller, closer to 10%, even if that.
Brigitte comment:
This post points out a very important and valid point: the beef industry has become a major contributor to the methane emissions causing climate change. However, I would argue that it will take more reform than a slightly more stringent policy on the husbandry industry to fix this problem. While new legislation limiting the methane emissions from cows is a step in the right direction, I do not think it is enough. Overall, the entire agriculture industry should ideally become less meat-based and possibly become a more plant-based industry instead. The externalities caused by cattle farming are more than just cow’s gas. In reality, the entire process behind the meat industry is not energy efficient and not sustainable long term. The benefits of vegetarianism is a point I fleshed out in my own memo, and these benefits warrant government action. America will need to sacrifice its love of meat if this nation is dedicated to becoming sustainable, but for that to happen the government will need to incentivize these choices. The problem here though, as you mentioned in your blog, is the political feasibility. Any new policy will likely be met with a lot of backlash, so change may take a while. However, I believe that shifting away from meat will be a necessary change for a sustainable future, as the contribution of the meat industry to climate change is astronomically higher than it should be.
Henry comment:
Noah, your blog post does an excellent job of bringing up an aspect of global climate change that is often overlooked. American agriculture has, for such a long time, really only emphasized overall output. You would think we would have maybe learned by now that strictly maximizing output can have devastating effects on the environment. The Dust Bowl in the early 1900s is a prime example of this. I agree that we really should pursue policies to mitigate the amount of methane that our agricultural industry produces. I think you do a great job to bring up the fact that methane, while a much smaller percentage of emissions, is almost equally as damaging to the environment because of its heat capacity in comparison to carbon dioxide.
The really challenging part of this whole conundrum is how we end up addressing it. As you mentioned American agriculture is really an untouchable subject in terms of taxation. The American political ideology has this myth that a significant portion of the country still relies on agriculture and we can’t hurt our yeoman farmers by taxing agriculture. In reality so many of our food products come from massive industrial farms. The problem is that the farm lobby in the US is so powerful it makes doing anything about these problems very difficult. Therefore, I think your suggestion of subsidizing farmers who implement mitigation practices would be the best way forward in addressing this problem.
[i] “Daily Livestock Report,” CME Group 8, no. 6 (2010): 1.
[ii] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Dairy Production and Products (accessed March 4, 2015); available from http://www.fao.org/agriculture/dairy-gateway/milk-production/en/#.VQdIckK-9UR
[iii] Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, Carbon, Methane Emissions and the Dairy Cow (accessed March 2, 2015); available from http://extension.psu.edu/animals/dairy/nutrition/nutrition-and-feeding/diet-formulation-and-evaluation/carbon-methane-emissions-and-the-dairy-cow
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] US EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012: Agriculture (accessed March 4, 2015); available from http://epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2014-Chapter-6-Agriculture.pdf
[vii] United States EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Methane (accessed February 19, 2015); available from http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
[viii] United States EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Overview (accessed February 19, 2015); available from http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
[ix] Ibid.
[x] The White House, FACT SHEET: Climate Action Plan – Strategy to Cut Methane Emissions (accessed March 4, 2015); available from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/28/fact-sheet-climate-action-plan-strategy-cut-methane-emissions
[xi] Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences
[xii] Ibid.
[xiii] The Ohio State University Department of Animal Sciences, Forages for Dairy Cattle (accessed April 8, 2015); available from http://ohioline.osu.edu/as-fact/0002.html
[xiv] Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences
[xv] Ibid.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Accessed March 4, 2015); available from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
[xviii] Project Vote Smart, National Agriculture and Food Special Interest Groups (Accessed March 3, 2014); available from https://votesmart.org/interest-groups/NA/4#.VQdPfEK-9UR
[xix] Open Secrets, Agribusiness and the Farm Bill: Wayward Dems Benefit from Contributions (Accessed March 4, 2015); available from http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/07/agribusiness-and-the-farm-bill-wayward-dems-benefit-from-co/