Beef has gotten a very bad rap when it comes to climate, and in the popular media and among activists gets presented as if reducing beef consumption is a number one priority and one of the most important things we can do to reduce our impact on climate.
However, in their research about influencing consumer choices to reduce climate impact Ferraro, et al. (2022) make a very important point. We have to consider more than just the potential impact we have on climate change when it comes to decisions about food, shelter and transportation. We have to look at the big picture, the costs, benefits and 'plasticity' - how impactable are people when it comes to changing behavior? What has the greatest realistic expected impact on climate?
When thinking about the problem this way, one question that comes to mind is - how many other seemingly arbitrary choices (other than reducing beef consumption) could we make in our daily lives that would have a similar climate benefit?
Let Me Count the Ways (other arbitrary ways to reduce your carbon footprint)
Another article by Obringer, et al. (2021) provides some interesting insights about the carbon footprint associated with various ways we use the internet:
- Globally, the Internet use has a carbon footprint ranging from 28 to 63 g CO2 equivalent per gigabyte (GB)
- The world median is 32.3 g CO2 per GB
- The U.S. median is 9% higher
- Common streaming services require 7 GB per hour of streaming using ultra HD quality video and have a carbon footprint of 441 g CO2e/hr
- Streaming 4 hrs/day with HD quality video produces about 53 kg CO2e/month
- Streaming at a lower quality SD video would reduce CO2e/month to about 2.5 kg
- Standard video conference services use ~ 2.5 GB/hr associated with 157 g CO2e/hr
- 15 one hour meetings a week equate to a monthly carbon footprint of 9.4 kg
- By turning off the video camera at an individual level, monthly CO2e emissions could be reduced from 9.4 kg to 377 g CO2e. This is equivalent to enough emissions savings to offset charging a smart phone each night for over 3 years (1151 days).
Framing Up the Discussion
Obringer, et al. (2021) certainly motivates us to think of a number of arbitrary ways we can reduce our carbon footprint other than making dietary changes when we think of all the various ways we use internet services in the age of Zoom meetings, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and smart phones. But let's take another look at beef consumption.
- In the U.S. the average consumer consumes about 60 pounds of beef/year
- On a monthly basis that equates to 5 lbs or about 2.26 kg/beef/person
- According to Rotz (2019) 1 kg of U.S. beef produces 22 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions
So if an individual consumer gives up U.S. beef for a month that equates to a reduction of about 50 kg CO2e emissions. It looks like the emissions related to beef consumption may be very similar to streaming HD video on a monthly basis given the assumptions above.
On the other hand, it looks like giving up beef for a month would have a much bigger impact on climate than giving up your Zoom camera for a month! More than 2x the impact.
But that is not even the full picture. We also have to consider how livestock emissions differ from emissions related to many other arbitrary things we do on a daily basis. Sure CO2 is CO2 but there's more to the story and that requires consideration of the biogenic carbon cycle pictured below:
That little cloud in the sketch represents the carbon footprint of beef - and if we are considering U.S. beef it represents less than 1/2 of 1% (i.e. < .5%) of global greenhouse gas emissions. If all U.S. consumers give up U.S. beef, then that little cloud completely goes away. On the other hand, if you decide to consume the same average amount of beef you have consumed for decades, that decision is not adding any new net GHG emissions to the atmosphere. We just keep recycling that same little cloud over and over. And as production technologies and management practices improve, we can eat the same amount of beef or more and make the cloud even smaller. But it doesn't get any bigger and on the net beef consumption doesn't have any new net impact on the climate. (we also have to consider tradeoffs related to nutrient density to really grasp all the implications related to food choices and climate)
But, as pictured below, the story changes when we shift our attention to many other arbitrary choices we make on any given day:
Almost every thing else we do that creates CO2 emissions bypasses the biogenic carbon cycle and adds new and long lasting greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. If we give up U.S. beef, that little cloud goes away (and as stated before has a minimal impact on a global scale). But for example, every time you turn on your web cam or stream HD, you are contributing to adding new and permanent long lasting GHG emissions to the atmosphere. So maybe according to the facts above, the little cloud you are recycling from monthly beef consumption is 2X larger than the cloud you are producing from your Zoom meeting. However, every time you zoom you are making another little cloud. And those little clouds can add up to be much bigger and never go away even if you eventually stop 'zooming.' On the other hand - every month you are streaming video you are producing a new cloud just as big as the one that's just being recycled if you consume beef, and its having a permanent and lasting impact on climate.
There are many other little things we do just as arbitrary as the decision to consume U.S. beef that also have important if not more consequential implications for climate change.
What do should we do? What is the most important thing you can do to have an impact on climate? If we are really concerned about this we have to ask ourselves when it comes to combating climate change, which behaviors and barriers should we be targeting to have the greatest impact?
As a personal choice some might say why not give up beef and also do other things to fight climate change - we should be doing everything we can. Many might agree that is a good idea - but being a good isn't enough for an idea to scale effectively to have the impact we desire. Trying to scale one idea based on beef consumption can risk drawing attention and resources away from more effective strategies. It could lead to odd and distracted behaviors like having a salad delivered by Uber Eats instead of a steak and thinking every order like this is doing your little part to save the planet as pictured below:
A broader perspective asks, how should we prioritize our time, attention and resources TODAY to have the greatest impact tomorrow? Do we start with that little cloud from beef while we continue to livestream HD quality from Netflix and have our salad delivered by Uber eats?
Turning off the video essentially has an easy button and cuts off the unending flow of climate emissions. But changing culture and food systems requires a lot more effort with a much lower expected payoff. We'd be shooting for 1/2 of 1% of global GHG emissions max and that's not even a realistic goal. I know where I would put my money!
Related Readings:
Behavioral Economics, Beef, and Climate: https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2023/02/behavioral-economics-beef-and-climate.html
References:
McFadden BR, Ferraro PJ, Messer KD (2022) Private costs of carbon emissions abatement by limiting beef consumption and vehicle use in the United States. PLOS ONE 17(1): e0261372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261372
Obringer, R., Rachunok, B., Maia-Silva, D., Arbabzadeh, M., Nateghi, R., & Madani, K. (2021). The overlooked environmental footprint of increasing Internet use. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 167, [105389]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105389
C. Alan Rotz, Senorpe Asem-Hiablie, Sara Place, Greg Thoma, Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems, Volume 169, 2019, Pages 1-13, ISSN 0308-521X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005.
