Livestock, methane, and climate change: The politics of global assessments
- PMID: 37033200
- PMCID: PMC10078214
- DOI: 10.1002/wcc.790
Livestock, methane, and climate change: The politics of global assessments
Abstract
The relationship between livestock production and climate change is the subject of hot debate, with arguments for major shifts in diets and a reduction in livestock production. This Perspective examines how global assessments of livestock-derived methane emissions are framed, identifying assumptions and data gaps that influence standard life-cycle analysis approaches. These include inadequate data due to a focus on industrial not extensive systems; errors arising due to inappropriate emission factors being applied; questions of how global warming potentials are derived for different greenhouse gases and debates about what baselines are appropriate. The article argues for a holistic systems approach that takes account of diverse livestock systems-both intensive and extensive-including both positive and negative impacts. In particular, the potential benefits of extensive livestock systems are highlighted, including supporting livelihoods, providing high-quality nutrition, enhancing biodiversity, protecting landscapes, and sequestering carbon. By failing to differentiate between livestock systems, global assessments may mislead. Inappropriate measurement, verification and reporting processes linked to global climate change policy may in turn result in interventions that can undermine the livelihoods of extensive livestock-keepers in marginal areas, including mobile pastoralists. In the politics of global assessments, certain interests promote framings of the livestock-climate challenge in favour of contained, intensive systems, and the conversion of extensive rangelands into conservation investments. Emerging from a narrow, aggregated scientific framing, global assessments therefore can have political consequences. A more disaggregated, nuanced approach is required if the future of food and climate change is to be effectively addressed. This article is categorized under:Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Assessing Climate Change in the Context of Other IssuesClimate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development.
Keywords: climate; conservation; global assessment; life‐cycle analysis; livestock; methane; politics.
© 2022 The Author. WIREs Climate Change published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Conflict of interest statement
The author has declared no conflicts of interest for this article.
References
-
- Adesogan, A. T. , Havelaar, A. H. , McKune, S. L. , Eilittä, M. , & Dahl, G. E. (2020). Animal source foods: Sustainability problem or malnutrition and sustainability solution? Perspective matters. Global Food Security, 25, 100325.
-
- Ajl, M. , & Wallace, R. (2021, October 2021). Red vegans against green peasants. New Socialist. https://newsocialist.org.uk/red-vegans-against-green-peasants/
-
- Alibés, J. , García, J. , Herrera, P. M. , Llorente, M. , Majadas, J. , Manzano, P. , Moreno, G. , Navarro, A. , Orodea, M. , & Oteros‐Rozas, E. (2020). Extensive farming and climate change: An in‐depth approach. Fundación Entretantos. Valladolid, Spain.
-
- Allen, M., Fuglestvedt, J., Shine, K., Reisinger, A., Pierrehumbert, R. and Forster, P. (2016). New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and short‐lived climate pollutants. Nature Climate Change, 6, 773‐776.
-
- Arca, P. , Vagnoni, E. , Duce, P. , & Franca, A. (2021). How does soil carbon sequestration affect greenhouse gas emissions from a sheep farming system? Results of a life cycle assessment case study. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 16, 1789. 10.4081/ija.2021.1789 - DOI
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources