Dr. Frank Mitloehner, a Professor and Air Quality Extension Specialist at the University of
California, Davis, recently released a white paper, “Livestock’s Contributions to Climate Change:
Facts and Fiction.” In it, Dr. Mitloehner uses incomplete greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions statistics
to downplay the environmental impacts of animal agriculture. The piece is critical of efforts, such
as Meatless Monday, that encourage citizens to understand how their diet choices affect the
environment (and their health) and begin to reduce intake of animal products. The Johns Hopkins
Center for a Livable Future has provided technical assistance and scientific expertise to the
national Meatless Monday campaign since 2003. Below, we address Dr. Mitloehner’s
mischaracterization of the evidence.
Dr. Mitloehner states that livestock production is responsible for 4.2% of U.S. GHG
emissions; this calculation fails to account for several major emissions sources. He cites EPA
estimates of enteric fermentation and manure management (1), but excludes emissions from the
production of animal feed and forage, including nitrous oxide emissions associated with fertilizer
application; land use changes; the transportation of animal feed, livestock, and food animal
products; and emissions associated with imported food animal products. In the paper, Dr.
Mitloehner draws conclusions based on data that do not reflect the full life cycle of animal
products, but goes on to acknowledge that Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods are the “gold
standard” for accurately measuring livestock’s contributions to climate change.
Dr. Mitloehner confuses global GHG emissions with those related strictly to U.S. emissions.
For example, Dr. Mitloehner contends that people are mistaken in their claims that GHG emissions
from U.S. livestock production are comparable to those from transportation. Statements
comparing animal agriculture and transportation, however, refer to global emissions, and these
comparisons are accurate. The most recent U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimate is
that 7.1 GT—or 14.5%—of global GHG emissions are attributable to animal agriculture (2), while
7.0 GT are attributable to transportation (3). The percentage of U.S. GHG emissions attributable to
animal agriculture is not comparable to global trends—and does not reflect the magnitude of the
problem—because emissions from U.S. energy and transport are exceptionally high, and
emissions from deforestation for grazing lands and feed crop production occur in other countries.
Dr. Mitloehner focuses on GHG emissions and discusses resource use, without
acknowledging the other ecological and public health impacts of industrial animal
agriculture. He fails to account for agricultural runoff, air pollution, antimicrobial resistance,
impacts to rural communities and workers, and other harms (4,5).
Dr. Mitloehner focuses on gains in efficiency per unit of livestock and fails to account for
the scale of food animal production and the total environmental footprint of animal
agriculture in the U.S. He states, “Improvements in livestock production efficiencies are directly
related to reductions of the environmental impact.” While there has been significant progress
made by U.S. animal agriculture industries in terms of efficiency, the overall impact of raising
approximately 10 billion food animals each year, and producing their feed, is enormous. The
benefits of increased efficiencies can be offset if food animal production continues to increase and
results in a larger total environmental footprint. It is thus incorrect to assume that the U.S. animal
agriculture sector has reduced its total environmental footprint because it has reduced GHG
emissions per unit of livestock produced. We recognize that urgent and dramatic GHG emissions reductions are critical across all sectors,
including transportation, energy, and agriculture; but even if emissions are dramatically reduced
across non-agricultural sectors, if current trends in animal product consumption continue as
projected, global mean temperature rise will more than likely exceed 2 degrees Celsius (6).
Reducing agriculture’s environmental impact will require drastic cuts in meat and dairy intake,
particularly among countries—like the U.S.—with the highest per capita levels of consumption.
The typical U.S. citizen consumes meat, dairy, and eggs at roughly three times the global average,*
to the detriment of human health and the environment (7). Compared to the average world diet,
the average American diet is associated with nearly twice the agricultural land use and GHG
emissions, 80-90 percent of which are related to the consumption of animal-based foods (8).
Although the problem of climate change may seem beyond the ability of individuals to make a
difference, adopting Meatless Mondays is an achievable way for most Americans to take a step
toward reducing their environmental footprint. As we work to reduce anthropogenic contributions to climate change, we call on all stakeholders
to accurately interpret emissions estimates and employ the best available methodology to assess
the environmental impacts of animal agriculture.
This statement was written by a team of researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable
Future, including Jillian Fry, PhD, MPH; Roni Neff, PhD, SM; Bob Martin; Rebecca Ramsing, MPH, RD;
Claire Fitch, MSPH; Brent Kim, MHS; Erin Biehl, MSPH; and Raychel Santo. The opinions expressed
herein are our own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Johns Hopkins University. For more
information about the Center for a Livable Future, please visit
www.jhsph.edu/clf or email us at
[email protected].
Kachels die er bovendien eigenhandig voor zorgen dat de fijnstof alarmdrempels 's winters quasi altijd overschreden worden in grote gebieden in België.
