What Can Be Done?
The lack of initiative on behalf of lawmakers and industrial livestock and agricultural corporations to combat rising atmospheric methane levels is a huge problem. Something must be done in order to mitigate the impact of increasing amounts of methane on climate change. Solutions such as changing animal feed, capturing methane to use as energy, regulations for monitoring and lowering amounts of methane released by these industries, and even subsidizing research to produce synthetic meat or environmentally friendly alternatives to dairy and rice products could all help curtail this issue. On a personal level, myself and others must alter our diets to reduce our dependence on these methane-intensive foods. Regarding manure management and wetlands, these systems can be altered and regulated to produce a more desirable effect. Solutions do exist but only will prevail if people, governments, and "big food" are pushed and incentivized to follow these practices.
Change Your Diet
We have the power to make a difference by just changing the way we eat. According to some estimates, if we cut down on our meat consumption and chose to eat more plant-based foods, we could cut our carbon footprint in half, and also, save our precious natural resources. By substituting rice and beef products for plant-based alternatives, resources could be much better allocated. Beef is the most resource-intense of all protein sources. Per kilogram, it needs more than six times the land and almost twice the amount of water to produce than chicken. For example, of the land that isn’t currently covered by ice, livestock takes up 26% of it with another 4% dedicated solely to growing livestock feed¹. One acre of land can yield about 250 pounds of beef¹. However, the same amount of land can produce 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, up to 53,000 pounds of potatoes, or 30,000 pounds of carrots¹.
Sustainable alternatives to rice include quinoa, cauliflower rice, broccoli rice, pasta noodles, and couscous. Sustainable and practical alternatives to beef are chicken, seafood, and pork. Other non-meat substitutes that are packed with protein include legumes and nuts, tofu, and innovative synthetic meat substitutes that are now being introduced into supermarkets.
Not only is a diet heavy with red meat and rice environmentally irresponsible, it is also detrimental to one's health. Energy-dense diets, purported to be high in meat, fats and sugars, and further compounded by sedentary lifestyle, have been implicated in the growing epidemics of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. High consumption of red meat increases the risk of developing heart disease, cancers, and diabetes. Half of American adults — 117 million people — have one or more preventable, chronic diseases related to poor quality dietary patterns and physical inactivity, according to the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee². And more than two-thirds of adults and nearly a third of children are overweight or obese². The adoption of healthier diets could reduce or avoid billions of dollars in healthcare costs, domestically and abroad.
The impact of changing one's diet may seem minimal in the grand scheme of things. Instead of thinking about just your individual impact, consider the bigger picture and the notion that if tens or hundreds of millions of people committed to cutting their meat and dairy consumption in half the difference it could make to the environment.
The impact of changing one's diet may seem minimal in the grand scheme of things. Instead of thinking about just your individual impact, consider the bigger picture and the notion that if tens or hundreds of millions of people committed to cutting their meat and dairy consumption in half the difference it could make to the environment.
Hold the Government Accountable
The only entity that is capable of issuing regulations, research funding, and incentives to properly measure and curtail methane emissions domestically is federal, state, and local government. One important and necessary action Congress needs to take is to do away with the provision to the EPA’s budget that prohibits the agency from spending money to collect emission reports on livestock producers. Monitoring and curbing greenhouse gases from livestock is considered vital to stopping global warming. However, no system is in place to measure these emissions on a nation-wide basis and this provision was recently renewed in 2016. The U.S. government collects emissions reports from 41 other sectors, making the meat industry the only major source of greenhouse gases in the country excluded from filing annual reports². It makes no sense that an industry that is responsible for 25%, or more, of global warming is so unregulated and ignored.
Current policies and regulations regarding livestock do not reflect the severity of the environmental degradation caused by the industrial livestock sector. In fact, these policies are completely contradictory. The U.S. spends $38 billion a year to subsidize meat and dairy, but only 0.04% of that ($17 million) to subsidize fruits and vegetables³. Lawmakers must fix this negligent behavior by revising legislation such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, which incentivizes mass production and gives meat an artificially low cost⁴. Every 5 years, legislators update the bill and pour millions into subsidies and reducing the largest costs of industrial livestock production, such as feed and waste management⁴. A 2007 Tufts University study found that "big food" saved $34.8 billion between 1997 and 2005 by purchasing feed at low prices with the aid of federal subsidies⁵. Instead of subsidizing these massive corporations, which pose clear and convincing risks to both the environment and public health, the government should redirect this public money towards better uses. Funding research on methane emissions and the development of synthetic meat, subsidizing plant-based products, and supporting small-scale traditional farms, would all be much better uses of the billions of dollars that instead go directly in the pockets of mass polluters.
Rather than fueling industrial livestock and agricultural corporations, the government should be taxing and regulating those responsible for mass amounts of atmospheric methane. In the current system, taxpayers are held accountable for the meat industry’s harmful environmental externalities³. The rate and amount at which these corporations produce hazardous emissions gives the EPA authority to treat Animal Feeding Operations as industrial polluters under the Clean Air Act and the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation, and Liability Act⁵.
Finally, the government needs to increase access and affordability for alternatives to these methane-intensive foods. For people to improve their diets and health, they need to have access to high-quality and affordable healthy foods in their communities. Innovative approaches to bring healthy food retail into communities have proliferated, especially in under-served neighborhoods⁶. These include creating financing programs to incentivize grocery store development; improving availability of healthy foods and beverages at convenience stores, farmers markets and mobile markets, community gardens and youth-focused gardens; creating new forms of wholesale distribution through food hubs; and improving transportation and public safety options⁶.
However promising, most of these approaches lack adequate evaluation. These and other promising equity-oriented efforts need to continue and be evaluated and then successfully scaled up to other communities⁶. To ensure healthy food access to everyone in America, action is needed across all levels, federal, state, and local, to create private-public partnerships and business models, with the highest priority on those places with greatest need. Similar efforts are needed to reduce access to and consumption of, calorie-dense nutrient poor foods and sugar-sweetened beverages in community settings. These efforts need to be seamlessly integrated with food assistance programs such as food banks, soup kitchens and Federal nutrition assistance programs in order to be as effective as possible.
Current policies and regulations regarding livestock do not reflect the severity of the environmental degradation caused by the industrial livestock sector. In fact, these policies are completely contradictory. The U.S. spends $38 billion a year to subsidize meat and dairy, but only 0.04% of that ($17 million) to subsidize fruits and vegetables³. Lawmakers must fix this negligent behavior by revising legislation such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, which incentivizes mass production and gives meat an artificially low cost⁴. Every 5 years, legislators update the bill and pour millions into subsidies and reducing the largest costs of industrial livestock production, such as feed and waste management⁴. A 2007 Tufts University study found that "big food" saved $34.8 billion between 1997 and 2005 by purchasing feed at low prices with the aid of federal subsidies⁵. Instead of subsidizing these massive corporations, which pose clear and convincing risks to both the environment and public health, the government should redirect this public money towards better uses. Funding research on methane emissions and the development of synthetic meat, subsidizing plant-based products, and supporting small-scale traditional farms, would all be much better uses of the billions of dollars that instead go directly in the pockets of mass polluters.
Rather than fueling industrial livestock and agricultural corporations, the government should be taxing and regulating those responsible for mass amounts of atmospheric methane. In the current system, taxpayers are held accountable for the meat industry’s harmful environmental externalities³. The rate and amount at which these corporations produce hazardous emissions gives the EPA authority to treat Animal Feeding Operations as industrial polluters under the Clean Air Act and the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation, and Liability Act⁵.
Finally, the government needs to increase access and affordability for alternatives to these methane-intensive foods. For people to improve their diets and health, they need to have access to high-quality and affordable healthy foods in their communities. Innovative approaches to bring healthy food retail into communities have proliferated, especially in under-served neighborhoods⁶. These include creating financing programs to incentivize grocery store development; improving availability of healthy foods and beverages at convenience stores, farmers markets and mobile markets, community gardens and youth-focused gardens; creating new forms of wholesale distribution through food hubs; and improving transportation and public safety options⁶.
However promising, most of these approaches lack adequate evaluation. These and other promising equity-oriented efforts need to continue and be evaluated and then successfully scaled up to other communities⁶. To ensure healthy food access to everyone in America, action is needed across all levels, federal, state, and local, to create private-public partnerships and business models, with the highest priority on those places with greatest need. Similar efforts are needed to reduce access to and consumption of, calorie-dense nutrient poor foods and sugar-sweetened beverages in community settings. These efforts need to be seamlessly integrated with food assistance programs such as food banks, soup kitchens and Federal nutrition assistance programs in order to be as effective as possible.
Holding Corporations Accountable
Climate Friendly Farming in Livestock Production
Vaccines, breeding, and antibiotics have been experimented on cows with the goal of lowing methane emissions to no avail. But just like how what we eat affects our planet, what cows eat affects it as well. At industrial livestock farms, cows are generally fed grass, hay, corn, soy, and hormones. However, recent studies have shown that unconventional methods of cow feed drastically reduce the amount of methane they produce through enteric fermentation. Rapid and large scale implementation of these feeding strategies could reduce 20% of global methane emissions by 2030⁷.
Adding seaweed to cows' diets has been shown to significantly reduce methane emissions in cows. A compound found in some seaweed disrupts enzymes used by the microbes to produce methane. In the past year and a half, several separate studies are finding dramatic decreases of methane emissions to cows that are fed even minimal amounts of seaweed. Researchers at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia found that an addition of less than 2% dried seaweed, a strain of red algae called Asparagopsis, to a cow’s diet can reduce methane emissions by 99%⁸. Upon digestion, Asparagopsis produces a compound called Bromoform, which interacts with enzymes in cows' stomachs and halts the cycle of methane production before the gas is released into the atmosphere⁸. Recent U.S. studies have also found promising results. University of California researchers are feeding seaweed to dairy cows in an attempt to make cattle more climate-friendly. Their experiments are currently ongoing, but they have found that seaweed additives to cattle feed have an effect of reducing emissions by over 30%, with one type of seaweed slashing enteric methane by more than 50%⁹.
Green tea and oregano also have potential to be used as feed for cows¹⁰. The active compounds present in oregano and green tea are able to affect enteric fermentation either by reducing the number of bacteria that are involved with protein degradation and ammonia production, or by protecting feed protein from being attacked by these microorganisms. Fed separately and in small quantities, green tea and oregano have the effect of reducing methane emissions from cows¹⁰.
"Oregano has essential oils with a mild antimicrobial called carvacrol, which can kill some of the bacteria in the cow's rumen that produce methane," explains Kai Grevsen, a senior researcher at Aarhus University¹¹.
Not only are these results wonderful in terms of reducing methane emissions, but there is also much to rejoice regarding its indirect impacts. By feeding cows these supplements, specifically seaweed and oregano, it was determined that dairy cows actually produce more milk when on these diets. "A cow loses a lot of energy in releasing all this methane," says Kai Grevsen ¹¹. "By blocking the bacteria, the energy that doesn't get lost can be used by the cow to produce more milk." This financial benefit to farmers alone should be enough to persuade them to switch.
However, there are additional benefits. Seaweed cultivation, for example, can be undertaken without land, fresh water or fertilizer ⁹. “If you can increase the digestion efficiency of a cow by 5 percent you could remove 5 percent of the land you use for production for cows. It can go back to fallow or be used to grow other kinds of food.” says Jonathan Reinbold, sustainability program manager for Organic Valley¹². These practices would result in less water and land being used overall in the industrial livestock process, and lower the carbon footprint -- or hoofprint -- associated with eating meat.
Vaccines, breeding, and antibiotics have been experimented on cows with the goal of lowing methane emissions to no avail. But just like how what we eat affects our planet, what cows eat affects it as well. At industrial livestock farms, cows are generally fed grass, hay, corn, soy, and hormones. However, recent studies have shown that unconventional methods of cow feed drastically reduce the amount of methane they produce through enteric fermentation. Rapid and large scale implementation of these feeding strategies could reduce 20% of global methane emissions by 2030⁷.
Adding seaweed to cows' diets has been shown to significantly reduce methane emissions in cows. A compound found in some seaweed disrupts enzymes used by the microbes to produce methane. In the past year and a half, several separate studies are finding dramatic decreases of methane emissions to cows that are fed even minimal amounts of seaweed. Researchers at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia found that an addition of less than 2% dried seaweed, a strain of red algae called Asparagopsis, to a cow’s diet can reduce methane emissions by 99%⁸. Upon digestion, Asparagopsis produces a compound called Bromoform, which interacts with enzymes in cows' stomachs and halts the cycle of methane production before the gas is released into the atmosphere⁸. Recent U.S. studies have also found promising results. University of California researchers are feeding seaweed to dairy cows in an attempt to make cattle more climate-friendly. Their experiments are currently ongoing, but they have found that seaweed additives to cattle feed have an effect of reducing emissions by over 30%, with one type of seaweed slashing enteric methane by more than 50%⁹.
Green tea and oregano also have potential to be used as feed for cows¹⁰. The active compounds present in oregano and green tea are able to affect enteric fermentation either by reducing the number of bacteria that are involved with protein degradation and ammonia production, or by protecting feed protein from being attacked by these microorganisms. Fed separately and in small quantities, green tea and oregano have the effect of reducing methane emissions from cows¹⁰.
"Oregano has essential oils with a mild antimicrobial called carvacrol, which can kill some of the bacteria in the cow's rumen that produce methane," explains Kai Grevsen, a senior researcher at Aarhus University¹¹.
Not only are these results wonderful in terms of reducing methane emissions, but there is also much to rejoice regarding its indirect impacts. By feeding cows these supplements, specifically seaweed and oregano, it was determined that dairy cows actually produce more milk when on these diets. "A cow loses a lot of energy in releasing all this methane," says Kai Grevsen ¹¹. "By blocking the bacteria, the energy that doesn't get lost can be used by the cow to produce more milk." This financial benefit to farmers alone should be enough to persuade them to switch.
However, there are additional benefits. Seaweed cultivation, for example, can be undertaken without land, fresh water or fertilizer ⁹. “If you can increase the digestion efficiency of a cow by 5 percent you could remove 5 percent of the land you use for production for cows. It can go back to fallow or be used to grow other kinds of food.” says Jonathan Reinbold, sustainability program manager for Organic Valley¹². These practices would result in less water and land being used overall in the industrial livestock process, and lower the carbon footprint -- or hoofprint -- associated with eating meat.
Climate Friendly Farming in Rice Production
Rice production also has a climate friendly farming solution, the "alternate wetting and drying" technology. This method for producing rice is a water-saving technology with a high methane emission mitigation potential⁷. This rice management practice was developed by the International Rice Research Institute and uses controlled and intermittent irrigation, rather than the usual system of maintaining continuous standing water in the crop field. Studies have shown that this approach not only reduces water use by up to 30%, but also reduces methane emissions by 48%¹³. These methane-reducing impacts can be maximized with efficient nitrogen use and application of organic inputs to dry soil¹³. Alternate wetting and drying has been field tested and validated by rice farmers in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, Myanmar, and Vietnam. In 2011, Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development showcased this method as one of the improved cultivation techniques for rice production to be adopted by 3.2 million hectares of rice cultivation areas by 2020¹³. This climate friendly farming practice, much like the supplements to cow feed, offer incentives for farmers by reducing costs associated with watering, fertilizer, and insecticide application, while not reducing the yields whatsoever. |
- Dolm, J. (2017, February). Shut the Front Door! If We Ate Less Meat, This Is What Would Happen to
the Planet. - Maccleery, L. (2015, August 7). Leave the science alone on Dietary Guidelines 2015. The Hill.
- Simon, D. R. (2013). Meatonomics. Conari Press.
- Imhoff, D. (2010). CAFO: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories. Earth Aware Editions.
- Global Development And Environment Institute. Feeding the Factory Farm.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015, December). 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th edition.
- CCA Coalition. Methane.
- Kinley, R., et al. (2016). The red macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis is a potent natural
antimethanogenic that reduces methane production during in vitro fermentation with rumen fluid.
Animal Production Science, 56(3). - Gabbatiss, J. (2018, May). Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their
burps, research finds. - Einstein-Curtis, A. (2018, March 12). Can methane emissions be reduced in dairy cows fed oregano and
green tea extracts? - Overgaard, S. (2016, May 12). Can Oregano Fight Cow Belches — And Climate Change?
- Mernit, J. (2018, July). How Eating Seaweed Can Help Cows to Belch Less Methane.
- CGIAR Centers and Research Programs. (2014, May). Putting Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) on the map, globally and nationally. International Rice Research Institute.