One-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture

So your a vegetarian and think you are saving the planet and not contributing to "global warming"? Think again.

"The global food system, from fertilizer manufacture to food storage and packaging, is responsible for up to one-third of all human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions, according to the latest figures from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), a partnership of 15 research centres around the world.

In two reports published today1, 2, the CGIAR says that reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint is central to limiting climate change. And to help to ensure food security, farmers across the globe will probably have to switch to cultivating more climate-hardy crops and farming practices.

“The food-related emissions and the impacts of climate change on agriculture and the food system will profoundly alter the way we grow and produce food,” says Sonja Vermeulen, a plant scientist at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and a co-author of one of the studies, which estimates the emissions footprint of food1."

https://www.nature.com/news/one-third-of-our-greenhouse-gas-emissions-come-from-agriculture-1.11708

 

This may be the most ridiculous thread ever created. It's time to bash vegetarians, whose footprint on the planet is less than any other group. Is the OP even aware that it takes at least 6x the agricultural land to grow animal feed crops?

Is the OP aware that vegetable farming is much more manual than "feed" farming, which is entirely mechanized and fossil fuel dependent? Is the OP aware that vegetable farming is more conducive to organic methods, with no herbicides and pesticides, than "feed" farming?

 

Yes indeed it takes more farming to feed animals and then eat them than it takes to eat the farm products yourself. This is old news from the 60s and you make a smaller impact on earth by being a vegetarian but you don't get a free pass. You still need to take responsibility for the fact that you participate in industrial farming and it's associated impact on the planet C02 and otherwise. The tractors and combines that plant, fertilize and harvest crops all use fossil fuel and lots of it. The semi trucks that deliver pesticides and herbicides in 40,000 gallon tankers also run on fossil fuel. Then there's the pesticides and herbicides themselves that are required for mass food production to feed our ever growing population. Then there's the huge barges traveling up and down the Columbia and snake river picking up inland grain and taking it down river to Portland for delivery world wide. I could go on forever on this but you get the idea I think. You participate in this every time you go to the grocery store.
Now having said that my wife grows a huge garden and cans her ass off all fall. What we can't grow at our elevation we buy at the local farmers market from small time organic valley farms and I hunt and fish for our meat. We don't live this life with any illusions of saving the world , we just like this lifestyle. Realistically we are 1% of the population though and what we do is not attainable for 99% of urban America especially the oh so green NY City and SF types. The OP is just to make them own up to reality.

 

Let's look at biofuel. How much more land is used to grow corn and other crops that are not food, but are fuel? There is where to start reducing land-use. The OP is right about the pollution resulting from industrial agriculture. It isn't all food though.

ETA: I know fossil fuels are non-renewable, but the carbon footprint of fossil fuels for transportation is significantly less than that of biofuel, no matter the source.

 

The biggest problems associated with industrial agriculture, IMO, are acidification and eutrophication. Fertilizer run-off is killing the oceans.

 

That's also a bit too simplified.

No doubt we could probably eat LESS meat, and it would be beneficial for the environment, but substituting all meat with vegetables is not the most environmentally sustainable way.

Basically, crops need high quality soil to be effective, while a lot of meat production, can be done in areas not suited for growing crops.

 

Lab grown meats have been developed that use 1/3 the water and other resources to grow. I imagine that will be the future.
They are expensive right now, but that will change in the next five years.

There is a ton of money to be made in creating new tech to deal with climate change - this is something I don't get with people who claim we should do nothing about climate change ... the downside is clean air, clean water and renewable energy - why is that such a bad thing.

 

More than half the agriculture goes to provide food to livestock in so-called "factory farms", because the poor animals are too densely packed to be able to graze in open pasture.

From an ecological perspective it makes more sense to eat 1 pound of grain rather than feed 15 pounds of grain to livestock to get 1 pound of meat.

You don't have to be totally vegetarian, just have smaller portions of meat and supplement them with some other sources of protein like beans or whole grains on the same plate. It's healthier too. 4oz of steak can still be a very satisfying meal if combined with vegetables, and other vegetable fats.

 

Also a bit too simplified. No doubt there's a lot wrong with industrialized agriculture in that food that could be produced for people, is instead produced for cattle. And a lot of good farmland for people, is being used for meat production instead.

But, people can't eat grass. And this is most of what cattle eat. Basically meat production means we're able to exploit land not suited for growing food for humans. And in this case, we're able to produce more from less by using machines to harvest this grass, and feed the cattle in farms, instead of having them trample most of the grass while outside.

Not saying cows should be kept inside all year around though, but there's an environmental benefit to keeping them inside.

 

That's fine but my point was being a vegetarian doesn't get you off the hook for contribution to global warming if your into that sort of thing. When you go to the grocery store and purchase fruit veggies and grain you are a contributor. Before I retired I had three log trucks that I would sometimes put on grain hauls and fertilizer runs when logging got slow and I was amazed at what went into farming grain. We would haul fertilizer and pesticides in 4000 gallon tankers from the snake river north a hundred miles where the farmers used it right up. Then back we'd go to the snake with loads of grain to dump for the barges to haul to portland. Back and forth back and forth,lots of diesel burned and lots of fertilizer and pesticides delivered.

 

Buy local. Buy organic.
What you're referring to is large corporate farming.
Large corps have been damaging the earth since the beginning.

 

On this we agree and it's why my wife gardens and we buy what we can't grow at local farmers markets. We have no illusions we are saving the world though, it's about quality of the food and no pesticides in our bodies.

 

Grain is one of the biggest polluters and the single most fuel intensive crop and the most full of pesticides though and its nearly impossible to buy flour, bread and pasta etc without it coming from industrial agriculture.

 

Grain is easy to harvest with a machine on a large scale and there's no way a small farm that did it the natural way could compete on price. Wheat is a major U.S. export, there's plenty of farmland suitable for growing wheat (since wheat can be grown in colder areas and doesn't require too much water), and it doesn't require much human labor to harvest.

 

No pesticides is green.

 

Tobacco is, and it's also a great insect repellent. Not really healthy, but pretty green.

 

Biofuel in America is a JOKE

It has nothing really to do with greening the planet and plenty to do with farm subsidies

 

At east the insects know the dangers! LOL!!

 

Do flatusing cows have anything to do with the agriculture footprint?

 

Is the tobacco plant unhealthy or all added chemicals into some addictive product using it?

Tobacco can be put on crops to ward off insects? Would it be healthy or unhealthy to do so?

 

Actually, the harm done by industrial agriculture is no joke

 

That is just a myth. Organic farming use chemicals they just use different ones and far more of them If you support organic farming then you literally hate the Earth and want farmers to become sick.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/fewer-pesticides-farming-with-gmos/

Even some organic farmers bristle when asked about the anti-GMO movement. Under the U.S. Organic Foods Production Act, they are not allowed to grow GMOs, despite their ability to reduce pesticide applications. Organic farmers still spray their crops, just with different chemicals, such as sulfur and copper. Amy Hepworth, an organic farmer at Hepworth Farms in Milton, New York, says that they, too, can take a toll on the environment.

Hepworth would like to continuously evaluate new avenues towards sustainable agriculture as technology advances. However, her views often clash with her customers’ in the affluent Brooklyn, New York, neighborhood of Park Slope. Many of them see no benefit in GMOs’ ability to reduce pesticides because they say farmers should rely strictly on traditional farming methods.

“What people don’t understand is that without pesticides there is not enough food for the masses,” Hepworth says. “The fact is that GM is a tool that can help us use less pesticide.”

Both the National Academy of Sciences and the Europan version have come out and said there is no difference in nutritional value or safety between organics and conventional crops. What is known is that organic crops require far more pesticides and insectides to grow.

Only ignorant, uneducated, anti-science troglodytes think "organic" is good. These same morons also believe that ethanol in your gas is better for the environment.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ethanol-ozone-levels-brazil-20140501-story.html

But ethanol critics contend that its effect on the environment is as bad or worse than oil. A National Academy of Sciences report concluded that the fossil fuel energy sources used to make ethanol and the amount of land devoted to corn cultivation may make ethanol use “ineffective” in reducing greenhouse gases.

 

Acutally, industrial sized anything is harm done.

 

That's not necessarily true.
It all depends whether the one in charge of production wants to use ecologically sound methods.

Although in some cases they might prefer to but do not because they would be unable to compete with other factories that do not go to the trouble of employing these practices.

 

Totally agree.

I grew up and worked on a farm, and I understand a bit about farming. And it seems like just about everyone that pushes for "organic farming", have no clue what organic farming or farming in general really is. Organic farming is harmful to the environment, not really the best for animal welfare, and less safe than non-organic farmed products.

Of course non organic farming can be harmful to the environment too, but with non organic farming, we have more area, and more methods to lessen those negative environmental impacts.

It's pretty sad really, because a lot of those urban environmentalists have good intentions, they're just clueless about the subjects they're debating. And it leads to disastrous results here.