Global methane levels are hitting new highs, yet this impact may still be not fully understood. Both domestically and internationally, these emissions due to agricultural processes are underreported and difficult to measure, ignored by governments and corporations, and are increasing because billions of diets rely on foods that are both detrimental to our environment and our health.
Lack of Oversight While methane emissions due to energy and industry production are more closely monitored and regulated, the same cannot be said for agricultural production. Methane emissions from agricultural production are under-reported or not reported at all. This is in part due to a lack of understanding the dangers and harms associated with atmospheric methane. Only a few years ago, most farmers and scientists thought that because methane was a short lived gas emitted from stock, it had little impact on global warming. However, when figures based on previous standards for calculating global greenhouse gas emissions appeared lower than expected, scientists began learning that methane has more of an impact on global warming than they realized. In 2017, researchers from the Joint Global Change Research Institute found that global livestock methane emissions for 2011 were 11% higher than the estimates based on guidelines provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2006¹. Revised manure management emissions estimates for 2011 in the US from this study were 71.8% higher than IPPC-based estimates². In a similarly damning report, in 2013 a team of researchers from various universities and organizations worked together to collect air samples and analyze actual emissions near large livestock operations. They found that greenhouse gas emissions from livestock were twice as bad as what the EPA estimated, with other studies said to have found similar results³.
Corruption These rising methane emissions domestically are likely due to the U.S. government’s interest in protecting the agricultural industry, at any cost. In 2010, Congress attached a provision to the EPA’s budget, prohibiting the agency from spending money to collect emission reports on livestock producers⁴. The EPA collects methane emission reports from 41 other sectors, such as the oil industry, yet lawmakers exclude the agriculture and livestock industry, the largest contributors to methane emissions, from filing annual reports⁴. With no significant governmental interest or oversight, "big food” corporations have no reason to change their production process or manage methane emissions better.
In 2015, The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee issued a report, recommending a “healthy dietary pattern is higher in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood, legumes and nuts; moderate in alcohol (among adults); lower in red and processed meats; and low in sugar-sweetened foods and drinks and refined grains.” This report, remarkably, sparked outrage among members of Congress⁵. Many Republican Senators and Representatives were outraged, claiming the Obama administration was overstepping its bounds and the recommendations would “negatively affect not only the agriculture industry but the American consumer who relies on the official dietary guidelines for a balanced diet.” or suggested the recommendations are politically or ideologically motivated and could “throw whole industries into chaos, irresponsibly harming the farmers and processors who feed America.” These outraged members of congress co-signed a letter in response. However, an analysis by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, using data from the Center for Responsive Politics, found that the 30 senators who signed the letter received more than $1 million from the food industry between 2013 and 2014, with more than half the total coming from the red meat industry. The analysis found the 71 signers of the House letter received more than $2 million from the food industry⁵.
Furthering this corruption and greed, many lawmakers are working to undercut the Advisory Committee's recommendations. Federal lawmakers have attached "riders"- provisions used to sneak through legislative changes that would be difficult to pass on their own in open congressional debate- to spending bills that would set a new threshold for the research needed to build the guidelines, only recommendations based on the “strongest” science⁶. The advisory committee rated as “moderate” the science driving the recommendation for a higher plant-based, sustainable diet. These riders could set back dietary guidelines to previous 2010 recommendations, out of touch with current science and research, by setting uncommonly high evidentiary standards for noncontroversial, practical advice, such as advice to avoid chronic diseases like diabetes and others by having a diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
No International Agreements to Limit Methane Emissions In the last several decades, there has been a substantial amount of climate agreements created. The Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Climate Accord are two recent developments signed by hundreds of countries in agreement on setting standards and responsibilities. However, not one of these hundreds of various climate agreements directly work to combat methane emissions from any source. Just because methane is not the most abundant greenhouse gas does not mean it is not dangerous, methane is much more effective at trapping radiation in the atmosphere. Agreements like the Paris Climate Accord would be more effective at limiting future global warming to between 1.5 °C and 2 °C if they properly accounted for methane emissions from all major sources⁷.
Staple Foods Are Responsible for Methane Emissions The two biggest sources of methane emissions from agricultural processes, cows and rice paddies, yield products that are essential to billions of people's diets around the world. Diets of several different continents are extremely dependent on beef for sources of protein and other nutrients such as iron, zinc, and B-vitamins. The United States, Brazil, and China are the world's three largest consumers of beef; however South American countries like Uruguay and Argentina consume the most per capita⁸. Rice is the staple food of more than half of the world’s population – more than 3.5 billion people depend on rice for more than 20% of their daily caloric intake⁹. Rice provided 19% of global human per capita energy and 13% of per capita protein in 2009⁹. Asia accounts for 90% of global rice consumption, and total rice demand there continues to rise⁹. Outside Asia, rice consumption per capita is on the rise with no signs of stopping. Rice is the fastest growing food staple in Africa, and also one of the fastest in Latin America⁹. Global rice consumption remains strong, driven by both population and economic growth, especially in many Asian and African countries.
The consumption of these products in the everyday lives of billions is higher than ever before. Global demand for livestock products is predicted to grow 70%, if not double, by 2050 in order to feed the growing population⁴. Both of these agricultural processes already have caused serious damage and global warming to the environment. With growing consumption of these goods at these projected rates, this damage has the potential to be irreversible.
New research indicates that for each degree that the Earth's temperature rises, the amount of methane entering the atmosphere from microorganisms dwelling in lake sediment and freshwater wetlands will increase several times¹⁰. Wetlands are among the largest biogenic sources of methane contributing to growing atmospheric methane concentrations and are, in turn, highly sensitive to climate change. As the temperature of Earth rises, these wetlands will thaw permafrost underground and also lead to increased rates of soil microbial activity, both of which release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere¹⁰. This creates a dangerous cycle in which more methane is released due to rising temperatures, and temperatures rise due to more methane.