Sustainability in nutrition: Is meat a climate killer?
The BBQ scene is groaning. With all the heated discussions about climate change, can we still use our grills as usual or will we be considered "climate offenders" in the future? The demands are far-reaching. According to the Paris Climate Agreement, greenhouse gas emissions must be halved by 2030 in order to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5 °C. The agricultural and food industry is considered to have a major influence in this. Measures and improvements are expected from it. But as the following explanation shows, a one-sided focus here achieves little. - By Gerhard Pfeffer
Does agriculture really absorb more CO2 than it produces?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that the land use sector represents a global store of 5 billion tons of CO2 per year. This means that over the last ten years, agriculture, forestry and other land use have absorbed significantly more CO2 annually on a global level than was emitted from the sector. This is because land ecosystems not only emit, but also absorb almost a third of the total, continuously increasing CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and industry.
A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in German agriculture from 79 to 63 million tonnes per year (i.e. by around 20%) was also achieved between 1990 and 2018. Today, these still account for around 7.4% of total CO2 emissions.(2)
One of the gases released in agriculture is methane, which behaves fundamentally differently in the atmosphere than CO2 from fossil sources (coal, oil, etc.). Methane breaks down into CO2 after 9 to 12 years and is converted again by plants as part of the biogenic life cycle. If the number of cattle herds remains the same, the proportion of methane in the atmosphere from livestock farming remains stable (5). A new special report from the IPCC underlines the importance of land use, the waste of resources, and also our eating habits for the climate, and makes some dubious recommendations for action. It is almost a stereotype to think that the only way to save the world's climate is to avoid (beef) meat and eat as vegetarian as possible - or even better, vegan. The fact that this is presented to us as the "key to saving the climate" is one-sided and unimaginative to say the least!
Competition for foodstuffs highlights the fact that foodstuffs are used in animal feed that would also be suitable for human consumption. This is the case, for example, when wheat is fed to cows, which should be avoided. Competition for land arises when feedstuffs made from corn for biogas plants come from areas that could otherwise be used to grow food. Resource-saving feeding methods and a roughage-based dairy industry are intended to reduce these undesirable interactions.
The land footprint of our overall very meat-based diet is inevitably high. Microsoft founder Bill Gates has dedicated himself to this topic and recommends in his book "How we can prevent climate catastrophe" that the richest countries in the world should say goodbye to meat consumption and switch to artificially produced products (meat from reactors). However, despite the advantages in terms of land, emissions and water consumption, an exclusive and one-sided preference for plant-based foods is not appropriate. Because, as always, there are two sides to this!
Without ruminants there is no grassland, no cultural landscape
Of course, we all have to pull together to save the climate. No industry, neither politicians nor consumers are exempt from this. However, we must refuse to portray agriculture and forestry as climate sinners in general. On the contrary: Agriculture and forestry make a significant contribution to climate protection, namely with sustainable management concepts that are optimally tailored to the respective natural area. Without effective grassland management with ruminants such as cows, sheep and goats, it is not possible to supply the population with food. Animal husbandry is also indispensable for keeping areas open and preserving the cultural landscape. In addition, there are soils that, due to their soil quality, can only be sensibly managed as "grassland" and have been for thousands of years. Where no arable crops thrive, ruminants do not represent a competitor for food. This is because only ruminants can use the grassland (grass) as feed. Imagine this globally: in many areas the rural population depends on sheep and goat farming.
Pork chops produce about 350 grams of CO2.
Pork and poultry
Pork and poultry from conventional production are roughly on a par in terms of CO2 equivalents and are significantly lower than beef. Feed efficiency (weight gain per kilogram of feed) also plays a decisive role. The continuous intensification of environmental protection has halved the environmental impact per pig since 1985. With a total meat consumption of 60 kg per citizen (currently 57.3 kilorams), 82.2 million citizens emit 26.6 million tons of CO2 (according to the LWK-Niedersachsen from 2016).
The often demanded halving of meat consumption would thus save around 13.3 million tonnes of CO2. But one should take into account:
A pork chop produces about 350 grams of CO2, roughly the same as:
• 4 cups of coffee
• 1 km drive
• 4.75 hours of television
• 25 minutes of vacuuming
However, a flight from Hanover to Gran Canaria and back produces more than two tons of CO2 per passenger. You can dismiss it as a social trend or criticize the fact that meat consumption is (too) high in developed countries. In developing and emerging countries, however, meat consumption will continue to rise. As people's incomes rise, living conditions improve and their meat consumption increases. Nevertheless, a change from traditional eating patterns makes sense and so I too advocate a return from the daily "weekday roast" to the "Sunday roast".
Impact of German CO2 pricing on imports and exports
The CO2 price (currently €25/t) increases the cost of food production and makes Germany increasingly unattractive as a location for many manufacturers. This does not help the climate, because the one-sided CO2 pricing of the German food industry only shifts the problem of climate-damaging greenhouse gases (distortion of competition). It does give Germany a more environmentally friendly image. However, the products, which are often produced more cheaply abroad anyway, drive up fossil energy consumption there and also have to be imported back to Germany to supply the local market. This increases CO2 emissions even further due to long transport routes. Climate protection is thus counteracted.
Long transport routes increase CO2 emissions and contradict society’s desire for regional food.
Such migration also contradicts society's desire for domestic food production, short supply chains and all sustainability efforts. Despite the burden of transport, the export of German meat actually contributes to sustainability. Many parts of an animal are often no longer in demand domestically. Just think of the trunk, paws, innards, etc. In other countries, however, these are considered delicacies that are refined there. The "from nose to tail" requirement, which improves sustainability, also fits in well with this. Conversely, sought-after "precious parts" are imported. Of course, every transport, regardless of the product (not just food), causes CO2 emissions.
Impact of traffic
Today, extensive transport is required to supply the population with food. Although the amount of food consumed per person has hardly changed, the total volume of food transported has doubled in the past two decades. The main reasons for this are concentration processes in the food trade and industry, as well as price aggressiveness and the resulting concentration and specialization in the agricultural sector. Transport by plane is particularly harmful to the environment: Overseas imports produce up to 170 times more emissions per kilogram of food than transport by sea. As a result, food imported by air should not be bought if possible. Unfortunately, we don't hear a word about the daily madness of air travel. The low-cost airlines and subsidized aviation fuel make it possible for everyone to fly to destinations far away from us at a bargain price. Avoiding a four-hour flight does more for the climate than a year of vegan diet (3). There is also no mention of the fact that the fast-growing cruise industry burns up to 5 tons of low-quality fuel per hour on its ships. There is no criticism of the ever-growing private transport and mass transport by truck, which is like a nail in the coffin of Germany's greenhouse gas balance. And has anyone ever calculated that the dramatic increase in online trade will require millions of parcel deliveries (by truck and van), which in turn will result in additional greenhouse gases? It seems that the IPCC is too cowardly to point out these unpleasant truths to consumers.
Environmentally harmful subsidies
According to a new study by the Federal Environment Agency, Germany invested at least 65.4 billion euros in environmentally and climate-damaging subsidies in 2018. Almost half of this, a total of 30.8 billion euros, went to road and air traffic, for example tax rebates for the use of aviation fuel and diesel vehicles. These environmentally harmful subsidies even increased in the years before Corona, despite greater climate protection efforts (according to the UBA).
The growing demand for palm oil means that significantly more land is needed to grow oil palms. As a result, more and more rainforest is being cleared for palm oil.
Purchased climate protection and long-term environmental offenders
"Greenwashing" or "green advertising lies" about non-ecological products are a key parameter in competition and advertising in the food industry and are already being dealt with in the courts. Here, too, politics would be called upon! In addition to the destruction of forests, for example in South America (more than 4 million hectares per year according to the FAO), the cultivation of oil palms has been heavily criticized for years. The increasing demand for more vegetable fats, for energy from alternative sources and the importance of palm oil for the non-food sector mean that considerably more land is needed. The area used to grow oil palms has increased more than tenfold since 1985. And this leaves its mark: rainforests have been cut down and cleared on a large scale. Especially in peat soils, on which new oil palms are often planted, the environmentally harmful slash-and-burn practices release a lot of stored CO2. However, the cultivation of oil palms is an important economic factor in the countries where they are grown and secures jobs, as many small farmers depend on them.
Food waste and packaging
Around a third (1.3 billion tonnes) of the food produced worldwide for human consumption is lost every year. In developing countries, losses often occur immediately after the harvest, before the food even reaches the market. Here in Germany, around 11 million tonnes are thrown away every year. In addition to restaurants, canteens and the food industry, private households alone account for around two thirds of this (80 kilograms per year, worth 235 euros per household). Around two thirds of this is still edible. Since every food item that is thrown away requires energy, raw materials, water and land during its production and has caused greenhouse gases, it should be eaten and not thrown away.
Approximately 1.3 billion tonnes of food produced worldwide for human consumption is lost each year.
This waste of food is ethically irresponsible, especially in view of the fact that there are around 840 million hungry people worldwide. Only with training and information can greater sensitivity and appreciation be achieved for a more conscious handling of food. It is time to finally put an end to the waste! In Germany, around 12 million tonnes of packaging waste are thrown away every year, which corresponds to around 145 kilograms per person. Not only does food packaging contribute significantly to our mountains of waste, but a considerable part of it ends up in landscapes, rivers, lakes and seas - and in turn endangers people and animals there. Waste avoidance and the reduction of packaging must be addressed more intensively. However, hygienic protection and shelf life often play a limiting role here.
Reaching into the shelf affects the climate
By choosing to prefer regional and seasonal products, consumers have a certain amount of power to influence climate change. Even if today there are often no limits to diversity, availability and, in some cases, financial possibilities. This would avoid long transports around the globe and production in heated greenhouses and under covered and/or heavily irrigated fields. Buying seasonal products means choosing fresh vegetables and fruit that can ripen in our climate zone during the current season. In winter, green lettuce and tomatoes grown in heated greenhouses or polytunnels should be avoided as much as possible. Heating greenhouses uses 34 times more primary energy than in open fields, and 200 times more in polytunnels. The corresponding CO2 emissions are 18 or over 100 times higher. Despite not being of animal origin, such products often have a worse balance than meat (e.g. avocados).
As a consumer, it is better to avoid fruit and vegetables from heated greenhouses and prefer seasonal, local products.
How climate-friendly are our eating habits?
Consumers have already been able to develop a sense of this in special shops and test markets. The respective CO2 footprint was converted into euros. The traditional price labeling was dispensed with, because the more harmful the item was to the climate, the higher its "price". However, this looks very much like "climate hysterical control". Nutritional ecology places far-reaching demands on diet. Despite all the common sense with regard to the environment, enjoyment when eating is particularly important. Because good food makes you happy and creates joy in life. As we have seen, everyone can do their part to reduce CO2 emissions in many different ways and still not have to forego enjoyable barbecue adventures.
Sources:
(1) Projections to CO2 equivalents according to table of the Federal Environment Agency
(2) Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), etc.) records all environmental/climate impacts in the form of an eco-/environmental balance or life cycle assessment (LCA). The climate impact of all greenhouse gases is then summarised in CO2 equivalents
(3) Calculations based on average values of the Federal Environment Agency Source: Focus Meat
(4) Comparison of the degradation properties of CO2 and methane. Source: Focus on Meat
(5) Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute (TI) on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture together with the University of Stuttgart in the study “Food waste in Germany – Baseline 2015”. Published 09/2019
(6) National fuel emissions trading: Here, producers currently pay a CO2 tax of 25 euros per tonne for the emission of climate-damaging fossil emissions from petroleum products, natural gas or coal, which will double by 2025. The aim of Alliance 90/The Greens: to increase the national CO2 price in the heating and transport sectors to 60 €/t in 2023 in order to accelerate the phase-out of coal.
