Putting Beef and Climate Into Perspective

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.

Eating your Steak and Having it Too

Methane has gotten a lot of attention recently in relation to fighting climate change:

"The oil, gas and coal industries are the largest source of human-caused methane emissions. An Environmental Defense Fund study found that cutting methane emissions now could slow the near-term rate of global warming by as much as 30%."

While these are the facts, it takes theory to explain facts, and unfortunately bad theory leads to bad decisions even if we get the facts right. A recent article in Politico provides an example in it's criticism of the Biden administration's failure to target methane emissions from livestock to combat climate change:

"This creative accounting and the administration’s policies belittle the livestock industry’s role in the methane emergency. While Biden and other U.S. officials are preaching the importance of slashing methane emissions to prevent catastrophic warming and imposing tough new methane regulations on fossil fuel companies, they are allowing super-polluting meat and dairy corporations to continue to emit massive amounts of the same greenhouse gas with impunity."

While understanding the greenhouse effect is critical to understanding climate change, understanding the biogenic carbon cycle is critical when understanding the impact of different sources of methane on climate change. When you get in your car to go to your favorite restaurant, the associated methane and CO2 emissions that result represents new and long lasting emissions. For the most part the steak or burger on your plate doesn't directly add any new warming potential to the atmosphere that didn't already exist, nor has any steak or burger you may have eaten in the last 30 years!

Why is this true? Read more as I dive into data from the EPAs data on greenhouse gas emissions and sinks here in Facts, Figures, or Fiction: Unwarranted Criticisms of the Biden Administration's Failure to Target Methane Emissions from Livestock.

Understanding the Distinctions Between Methane and Carbon From Livestock Emissions

This is a very nice video that gets into some of the key differences between the way methane behaves in the atmosphere vs. carbon, and the impacts on climate change. See also:

Cain, M., Lynch, J., Allen, M.R. et al. Improved calculation of warming-equivalent emissions for short-lived climate pollutants. npj Clim Atmos Sci 2, 29 (2019)

Getting the biggest nutritional bang for our climate buck (especially for that $4 Latte)

There are recent headlines about Starbuck's 2020 initiative to reduce their carbon footprint and part of that strategy is offering plant based alternative drinks vs the traditional dairy based ingredients.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/can-starbucks-save-the-planet-by-cutting-dairy-activists-and-investors-respond-2020-01-21

No matter what you order at starbucks, the impact is probably minimal compared to the impact of simply how you get there.

Given that consuming #beef in the U.S. accounts for less than .5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, it's no doubt eating a salad in a restaurant or a veggie sub is less climate friendly than a steak at home. https://t.co/dVKTRx83k1

— Matt Bogard (@AgEconomist) January 26, 2020

Maybe you can get past that argument if you are combining trips.

But combining trips makes for a good analogy when it comes to the carbon footprint of our food.

How do we know we are getting the most nutritional bang for our climate buck. In a 2010 Food and Nutrition Research article, authors introduce what they are calling a Nutrient Density to Climate Impact (NDCI) index that takes this into account. According to their work:

"the NDCI index was 0 for carbonated water, soft drink, and beer and below 0.1 for red wine and oat drink. The NDCI index was similar for orange juice (0.28) and soy drink (0.25). Due to a very high-nutrient density, the NDCI index for milk was substantially higher (0.54) than for the other beverages. Future discussion on how changes in food consumption patterns might help avert climate change need to take both GHG emission and nutrient density of foods and beverages into account."

Just as combining trips and carpooling might be effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint getting the most out of every mile driven and gallon of gas used, we should be trying to get the most out of every bite we take and ounce we drink. Starbucks could help us do this by supporting our dairy farmers and emphasizing the very high NDCI for milk! After all, it does a body good.

HT: I found out about the NCDI via this related post by Michelle Payn https://causematters.com/advocacy/starbucks-environment-farmer/

References:

Smedman A, Lindmark-Månsson H, Drewnowski A, Edman AK. Nutrient density of beverages in relation to climate impact. Food Nutr Res. 2010;54:10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5170. Published 2010 Aug 23. doi:10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5170

Some Beef and Meat Related Posts from the Incidental Economist

I'm a big fan of the Incidental Economist blog where I have learned a lot about healthcare economics. Recently healthcare economist Austin Frakt has shared some video monologues discussing meat, fake meat, health and the environment.

In the first video he discusses some recent research related to meat consumption and health, mainly there is no evidence that red meat presents a major health concern. And the challenge of observational data and research related to this:



However, in this  next video, I think the facts being referenced are making some assumptions that need clarification. Mainly, there seems to be an assumption that beef produced and consumed in the U.S. is exchangeable with beef produced in developing countries or that land devoted to beef production is exchangeable for land that could be used for food production purposes. Reducing consumption of beef in the U.S. likely won't have the impacts on consumption in other countries in the simplified way this story is often told.  U.S. beef accounts for .5% or less of global greenhouse gas emissions accounting for fossil fuel and grain consumption, as well as land use alternatives. And most of the land used for beef production isn't suitable for any other type of food production. Ruminants are able to convert inedible plant and fiber on marginal lands to highly palatable nutrient dense food sources. Adding a little grain (accounting for ~ 7% of the U.S. corn crop) can shorten the time grazing and increase production actually decreasing lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.



I
n this final video, Dr. Frakt discusses how alternative/fake meat products are in fact NOT a healthier alternative to real beef:

Will Eating Less U.S. Beef Save the Rainforests?

There are often some common misperceptions about beef consumption. One is that eating less beef is one lifestyle change that can have a major impact on reducing your carbon footprint. However, if you live in the U.S. and eat U.S. beef, it's likely to be very minimal. U.S. beef accounts for just .5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. There are probably a number of other quite arbitrary lifestyle changes that could have a similar impact that would allow you to have your steak and eat it too. U.S. beef is just not exchangeable for other sources of beef.

The counter to this is often that if we reduced consumption in the U.S. our more sustainable beef could be exported to other countries, reducing the incentive to clear environmentally sensitive lands for beef production. However, as U.C. Davis air quality extension specialist Frank Mitloehner explains, again, U.S. beef is not exchangeable for other sources of beef produced other ways in other countries:

"In 1970, Americans consumed about 80 pounds of beef per person. Today? About 57 pounds. And in 1970, the U.S. exported less than 1 percent of its production but over 11 percent in 2018. Americans have long been doing their part according to this model. So, why is Brazil expanding its grazing area?

In short, they are different products serving different markets. Beef from Brazil is not the same as beef from the U.S., which specializes in producing well-marbled, grain-finished beef. Conversely, Brazilian beef exports tend to be grass-finished, leaner and in general lower-quality products. As a result, these two countries are producing beef for very different consumers – the U.S. is targeting higher-income countries for exports, such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, where demand growth is slower, whereas Brazilian beef is headed to lower-income consumers in countries such as China, Chile, Egypt and Iran, where demand growth is much faster. In short, any potential gains by U.S. consumption have been swamped by growing demand elsewhere.

Would increased U.S. beef exports eventually displace Brazilian beef exports in lower-income countries? Maybe, but it would take a considerable change in consumer choices and income in those countries. ....It’s just not that simple. Ultimately, a U.S. consumer eating less meat has not and will not displace consumption of Brazilian beef in Iran or China and therefore, decrease land expansion into the Amazon. That’s not how global beef markets work."

Carbon Footprint of Beef Production

C. Alan Rotz et al. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005

see also: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-beef-resource-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

'The seven regions' combined beef cattle production accounted for 3.3 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions (By comparison, transportation and electricity generation together made up 56 percent of the total in 2016 and agriculture in general 9 percent).'

Globally this translates to .47% of GHG emissions!

Data from the EPA seems in line with this, finding total agriculture emissions at 9% of total U.S. GHG emissions.

see: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

HERE is a nice susmmary fo the Rotz article:

• Greenhouse gas emissions: Beef production, including the production of animal feed, is responsible for only 3.3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. This is dramatically lower than the often-misapplied global livestock figure of 14.5 percent2. Furthermore, through continuous improvements in production practices, U.S. beef farmers and ranchers have avoided 2.3 gigatons of carbon emissions since 19753.
• Grain feed consumption: Per pound of beef carcass weight, cattle only consume 2.6 pounds of grain. This is comparable to feed conversion efficiencies of pork and poultry. Additionally, nearly 90 percent of grain-finished cattle feed is inedible to humans, meaning these plants can only provide value to humans when they're upcycled by cattle into high-quality protein.
• Corn feed consumption: Corn used to feed beef cattle only represents approximately 9 percent of harvested corn grain in the U.S., or 8 million acres. By comparison, 37.5 percent of corn acreage in the U.S. is used for producing fuel ethanol4.
• Water use: On average, it takes 308 gallons of water to produce a pound of boneless beef. Previous reports have estimated upwards of 24,000 gallons5. Additionally, water use by beef is only around 5 percent of U.S. water withdrawals, and this water is recycled.  
• Fossil fuel inputs. Total fossil energy input to U.S. beef cattle production is equivalent to 0.7% of total national consumption of fossil fuels.

Agricultural Intensification and the Environment

This story puts blame on the meat industry for largest ever "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico.

The authors of the original study are advocating reduction or elimination of meat consumption.

Others tend to think focusing more on 'low-input' agriculture is the solution. However this study finds organic farming systems have a 37% higher eutrophication potential.  (HT: Breakthrough Blog)

Note also, in the study I cite here low input agriculture is inherently coupled with large scale grain and livestock production.

This paper (using simulation) finds a land sparing and GHG mitigating effect from intensification of livestock production in Brazil.

This paper finds "investment in yield improvements compares favorably with other commonly proposed mitigation strategies. Further yield improvements should therefore be prominent among efforts to reduce future GHG emissions."


References:

Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice
Michael Clark1,4 and David Tilman2,3
Published 16 June 2017 • © 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 6

To what extent does organic farming rely on nutrient inflows from conventional farming?
Benjamin Nowak1,2, Thomas Nesme1,2, Christophe David3 and Sylvain Pellerin1,2
Published 5 December 2013  2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 4

Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification Jennifer A. Burneya,Steven J. Davisc, and David B. Lobella.PNAS  June 29, 2010   vol. 107  no. 26  12052-12057

Britain to Ban New Gas and Diesel Autos by 2040

Well in GB they plan to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars by 2040. I'd really like to see the cost benefit analysis on that especially as it relates to GHG emissions.

According to this story, about 2.7 million cars were registered in GB in 2016.

Recall, by some estimates GHG reductions associated with planted areas of biotech crops in the U.S. were equivalent to removal of almost 11 million cars!

Could they not just import more corn from the U.S. and call it even?

What is the most effective way to mitigate climate change?

Jayson Lusk discusses this article:

The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions
Seth Wynes1,2,3 and Kimberly A Nicholas1
Published 12 July 2017 • © 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 7

One of the top things on the list (#2) was living car free. That reminds me of a post I wrote a couple years back over at Economic Sense: Hybrid Corn vs Hybrid Cars. In that post I noted:

"According to research from PG Economics, in 2009 alone, greenhouse gas reductions associated with biotechnology were equivalent to removing 7.8 million cars from the road."

It would be interesting if we could get data to put this in terms of individual consumer choices. To what extent would changing from an organic GMO free diet to a conventional diet containing GMOs impact our carbon foot print? I'm not sure this is really a practical question, most people probably consume a mix of foods (even Whole Foods shoppers) and on an individual level this may not make a big difference. But there definitely could be an aggregate effect. I have not reviewed the methods in this particular study, but as a conversation piece it brings up a very relevant concern - what would happen if consumer sentiments and the regulatory environment continued to disincentivize the production of genetically engineered foods? (we've seen this with finely textured beef for sure, and rBSt) While other studies might provide different estimates of the effect size of CO2 emissions related to biotech adoption, at least directionally our experience suggests that these technologies make it possible to produce the same or additional levels of output while reducing the toxicity of chemical applications, complementing crop rotation and no till practices that reduce fertilizer runoff and pollution, as well as require less energy moving very heavy equipment across fields (which in turn would reduce CO2 at some level).

In terms of practical policy applications, how much coercion/regulation/taxation/incentivization would be required to convince or force 8 million people to give up their cars? It seems a lot easier for me as a consumer to freely choose to consume a mountain dew with high fructose corn syrup derived from GMO corn than to make a huge change in my lifestyle like going car free. And it seems like a very easy choice for farmers to keep planting biotech.

***UPDATED (July 28, 2017): I just realized there has been an update to this study:

Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions
Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot
GM Crops & Food Vol. 8 , Iss. 2,2017
Link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490

The updated number of car equivalent levels of CO2 reductions due to area planted to biotech crops is closer to 12 million (11.9).

Reference:

GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2009. Brookes and Barfoot.

John Cochrane asks the right questions about climate change

From: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2017/02/carbon-compromise.html?m=1

“A plea to commenters. Don't fall in to the trap of arguing whether climate change is real or whether carbon (and methane) contribute to it. That's 5% of the debate…Science might tell us that the temperature will warm 2 degrees in a century, with a band of uncertainty. But the band of uncertainty of the economic, social and political consequences of 2 degrees is much bigger…Both sides have fallen in to the trap of arguing about climate change itself, as if it follows inexorably that our governments must respond to "yes" with the current system of controls and interventions. The range of economic and environmental effects from the "how" question are much, much larger than the range of the effects of the "is climate change real" question.”

This echoes what I have written previously:

If we are going to make progress here we have to accept that it does not make one a climate change denier to understand that our response to climate change also has to be based on facts and evidence held to the same level of rigor and scrutiny as the science supporting its existence.

 and mirrors the point Steve Horwitz made some time ago about the fallacy of jumping directly from the "science" to policy:

“It is perfectly possible to accept the science of global warming but reject the policies most often put forward to combat it.  One can think humans are causing the planet to warm but logically and humanely conclude that we should do nothing about it. In fact, those who think they can go directly from science to policy are, as it turns out, engaged in denial” 

See also:

The Progressive Way to Deny Climate Change
Facts, Alternative Facts, Evidence, and the March for Science
Doing Nothing: A science based policy prescription for climate change

Freedom is the miles I'm rollin' on.....not if you can't meet GHG standards

People think about the importance of certain freedoms, like freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. But one freedom we might think less about is the freedom to travel...to move from place to place at will..to work...to enjoy life. Its in many ways the essence of the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately overzealous regulations are indirectly taxing this important freedom, and it is showing up in the price of new trucks and SUVs.

From:

http://www.agweb.com/mobile/article/ford-f-150-has-big-problem-after-overhaul--blmg/

"Ford Motor Co. executives spared no expense in overhauling the crown jewel of their empire, the F-150. They gave the truck a new aluminum body, smaller turbocharged engines and a lighter and stronger steel frame -- all with an eye to appease U.S. regulators demanding cleaner vehicles. The initiative took six years and cost Ford more than $1 billion."

“Not meeting the standards is not really an option, especially on your most profitable product,’’ said Gopal Duleep, president of H-D Systems, a Washington research company. “On fuel economy, the regulators allow you to pay a fine if you fall short. But on greenhouse gas, they don’t. You either meet the standard or they shut you down.’’

"The new technologies save fuel but add thousands in consumer costs…Between 2011 and May 2016, the average price of full-size pickups jumped 24 percent -- almost triple the pace for all new vehicles -- to $41,606, according to J.D. Power & Associates."

These costs are outrageous. How are middle and working class Americans supposed to afford these kinds of increases? Even if you buy used, more people turning to less expensive older vehicles likely will translate in to increased demand and higher prices in those markets as well.

Adding insult to injury, these regulations are NOT science based. At best they are political feathers in bureaucratic hats, at worst they are based on pseudo-scientific quasi-religious claims about the impacts of emissions on climate change. These regulations and costs are way out of proportion to any scientific consensus on climate change. It is way too weak to offer much guidance on actions, or very precise estimates of actual risks/benefits. ( see here, here, and here).

There are too many margins and too many market based and technological possibilities to use such a blunt and REGRESSIVE regulatory apparatus to address climate change.

See also: Hybrid Corn vs Hybrid Cars

Livestock and climate change: Fact and Fiction

Very nice article related to livestock production and climate change.

http://blogs.ucdavis.edu/egghead/2016/04/27/livestock-and-climate-change-facts-and-fiction/

 It is interesting that so many people are quick to shame climate change skeptics, based on a so called consensus about climate change, but throw science under the bus when it comes to actual policy. In essence, science is thinly veiled behind a very weak consensus to start with.

"While there is scientific consensus regarding the relative importance of fossil fuel use, anti animal-agriculture advocates portray the idea that livestock is to blame for a lion’s share of the contributions to total GHG emissions...The argument suggests the solution of limiting meat consumption, starting with “Meatless Mondays,” to show a significant impact on total emissions.....(however)...If all U.S. Americans practiced Meatless Mondays, we would reduce the U.S. national GHG emissions by 0.6 percent."

The article contains lots of data related to the impact of animal agriculture on GHG emissions with some very good infographics and discusses the importance of technology, efficiency, and intensification.

See also: Doing Nothing: A science based policy prescription for climate mitigation
               Climate Change, Matt Ridley, and Fat Tails
               Food Miles and Local Beef

How bad, really, is meat eating? — via Jayson Lusk

Jayson Lusk has a nice post: How bad, really, is eating meat. He takes some EPA based carbon footprint/externality/social cost calculations and applies them to the price of meat. Basically the value of the impact of meat on the climate amounts to a few cents per serving. 

You don't have to be a climate change denier to deny the embellished drama of most climate change policy advocates....beef is not that bad when it comes to carbon footprint and it's getting better....and remember the numbers are not as good for local/grass finished/hormone free vs. conventional but I would say still have an overall low impact b/c that market is small.

See also: Doing Nothing: A science based policy prescription for climate mitigation