Reduce, Reuse, Go Vegan

Volume 1 Issue 9 Humans Article 3

2-21-2017

Juliana Sandford

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/psr

Part of the Environmental Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Sandford, Juliana (2017) "Reduce, Reuse, Go Vegan," Penn Sustainability Review: Vol. 1 : Iss. 9 , Article 3. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/psr/vol1/iss9/3

This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/psr/vol1/iss9/3 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reduce, Reuse, Go Vegan

This article is available in Penn Sustainability Review: https://repository.upenn.edu/psr/vol1/iss9/3 REDUCE, REUSE, GO VEGAN The environmental case for a plant-based diet WRITTEN BY JULIANA SANDFORD JULIANA SANDFORD

There exists a caricature of vegans: The overly outspoken, dreadlocked, underweight hippie emissions of 132 million passenger vehicles.2 In global touting PETA slogans and carrying protest signs under- terms, as published in the IPCC’s 2014 Synthesis Report, arm. Society makes vegans out to be crazed individuals according to the U.S. Department of State, agriculture’s set on their lifestyle of fervent meat-eater hatred. But, contribution is even more significant, with 24% of 2010 vegans are onto something the rest of the world has yet global GHG emissions produced by agriculture, for- to figure out: plant-based diets—beyond reducing ani- estry, and other land uses, most of which are noted as mal cruelty, providing clean nutrition and being ethical- agriculture and deforestation.3 It is alarming, to say the ly sound—have the potential to reduce the anthropogen- least, that ostensibly natural land use contributes more to ic burdens on the environment. Veganism can help save global GHG emissions than the clearly unnatural trans- our planet. portation sector—just 14% globally, as given by the same report for 2010. It can be reasonably assumed that most people living in developed countries have at least a cursory understand- Carbon dioxide is targeted in mainstream knowledge as ing of climate change and its driving forces. Yet, based the number one contributor to climate change via accu- on the consistent increases in global meat consumption mulation in the atmosphere coupled with the greenhouse and the related growth of the livestock industry, it seems effect, but it’s not the only one. While carbon dioxide that people are generally unaware of the contribution the accounts for 80.91% of greenhouse gas emissions in the agriculture sector, especially livestock, makes to global United States, methane adds another 10.61% from nat- warming—or perhaps those who are aware are not will- ural gas and agricultural emissions.4 Globally, methane ing to cut meat from their diets. We can maintain our Observedcontributes Changes 16%, and largely their Causesfrom the agriculture sector.5 In Topic 1 collective ignorance, or we can choose to acknowledge addition, the comparatively low percentage is deceiving; the facts: the meat industry is a significant contributor to 2010, both drivers outpaced emission reductions from improvements Greenhouse gas emissions by economic sectors climate change in many facets, from direct emissions to in energy intensity of gross domestic product (GDP) (Figure 1.8). land use. Essentially, our appetite for meat is yet another Electricity Increased use of coal relative to other energy sources has reversed and heat production Energy driving factor of our planet’s decline. 25% 1.4% the long-standing trend in gradual decarbonization (i.e., reducing the carbon intensity of energy) of the world’s energy supply. {WGIII SPM.3, AFOLU 24% TS.2.2, 1.3, 5.3, 7.2, 7.3, 14.3} We logically associate dirty industry and gasoline-guz- Buildings Industry zling vehicles with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But 6.4% 11% Introduction the serene bucolic farmland we pass by while driving in 1.3 Attribution of climate Transport those vehicles, though seemingly innocent in terms of en- 0.3% changes and impacts Transport Total: 49 Gt CO2-eq vironmental damage, produces GHG emissions as well— 14% (2010) 9.1% of the total 2014 emissions in the United States, or The evidence for human inﬂuence on the climate Industry 1 625.2 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, to be exact. 21% Buildings system has grown since AR4. Human inﬂuence has 12% For context, that figure is equivalent to the annual GHG been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the Other ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reduc- 1 energy 9.6% AFOLU tions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level Greenhouse gas emissions by economic sectors. 0.87% rise; and it is extremely likely to have been the domi-

IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, 47. Direct GHG emissions Indirect CO2 emissions nant cause of the observed warming since the mid- 20th century. In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems Figure 1.7 | Total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (gigatonne of CO - 2 on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are equivalent per year, GtCO2-eq/yr) from economic sectors in 2010. The circle shows the 18 | PENN SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW shares of direct GHG emissions (in % of total anthropogenic GHG emissions) from five due to observed climate change, irrespective of its economic sectors in 2010. The pull-out shows how shares of indirect CO2 emissions cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human (in % of total anthropogenic GHG emissions) from electricity and heat production are systems to changing climate. attributed to sectors of final energy use. ‘Other energy’ refers to all GHG emission sources in the energy sector as defined in WGIII Annex II, other than electricity and heat production {WGIII Annex II.9.1}. The emission data on agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) includes land-based CO2 emissions from forest fires, peat fires The causes of observed changes in the climate system, as well as in any and peat decay that approximate to net CO2 flux from the sub-sectors of forestry and other land use (FOLU) as described in Chapter 11 of the WGIII report. Emissions are natural or human system impacted by climate, are established follow-

converted into CO2-equivalents based on 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP100), ing a consistent set of methods. Detection addresses the question of taken from the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR). Sector deﬁnitions are provided whether climate or a natural or human system affected by climate has in WGIII Annex II.9. {WGIII Figure SPM.2} actually changed in a statistical sense, while attribution evaluates the relative contributions of multiple causal factors to an observed change

Decomposition of the change in total global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion by decade 12 /yr) 2 10 Carbon intensity of energy Population Energy intensity of GDP Total change 8 GDP per capita

6 6.8

4 4.0 2.9 2 2.5 emissions by decade (GtCO 2 0

–2

–4

–6 Change in annual CO 1970–1980 1980–1990 1990–2000 2000–2010

Figure 1.8 | Decomposition of the change in total annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion by decade and four driving factors: population, income (gross domestic product, GDP) per capita, energy intensity of GDP and carbon intensity of energy. The bar segments show the changes associated with each individual factor, holding the

respective other factors constant. Total emission changes are indicated by a triangle. The change in emissions over each decade is measured in gigatonnes of CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr); income is converted into common units, using purchasing power parities. {WGIII SPM.3} 47 REDUCE, REUSE, GO VEGAN

methane is significantly more potent than carbon diox- dation.12 Of all sectors, the most land use is dedicated ide, with a global warming potential (GWP) of 86 over a to animal agriculture, including the cropland required to twenty year time period relative to the standard carbon grow animal feed, a staggering 60% of corn and barley dioxide GWP of 1.6 In practice, this measure indicates fields and 97% of soymeal fields.13 Additionally, a study that methane is capable of trapping 86 times more heat published in AMBIO shows the incredibly inefficient in the atmosphere than the same mass of carbon dioxide conversions of animal feed to meat produced: 4.2 ki- over the twenty year interval. That alone should be con- lograms of feed are required to produce one kilogram cerning enough to take action. of chicken, 10.7 kilograms to produce one kilogram of pork, and 31.7 kilograms to produce one kilogram of In a 2006 report entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow, the beef.14 As a result, 56 million acres of U.S. land are used Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United to produce hay for feed while only 4 million produce Nations estimated that the livestock industry alone is re- vegetables.15 sponsible for 18% of global GHG emissions and, notably, 75% of agriculture sector emissions.7 However, a more An innocuous shift in diet, the doubling of per-capita recent report published in 2009 in World Watch Maga- meat consumption, combined with a continually in- zine contradicts both the earlier estimate and the 2014 creasing population has resulted in a global demand for EPA estimates mentioned above. In the report, World meat five times greater than the demand fifty years prior. Bank environmental specialists Robert Goodland and The planet is simply not capable of responding to that Jeff Anhang analyzed “uncounted or misallocated” GHG demand. Enter a plant-based diet. emissions to correct the FAO estimate to a shocking 51% of global GHG emissions attributable to the live- A study done at the University of Oxford and published stock industry and its products.8 Moreover, Goodland in the PNAS Journal in March 2016 concluded that and Anhang used a now outdated methane GWP of 72 “transitioning toward more plant-based diets that are in on a twenty year scale, making their assessment conser- line with standard dietary guidelines could reduce glob- vative.9 With contradicting data available from different al mortality by 6–10% and food-related greenhouse gas credible sources, it is hard to confidently rely on one es- emissions by 29–70% compared with a reference sce- timate; regardless, methane emissions deserve attention. nario in 2050.”17 The researchers examined four global diet trends extended to 2050: (1) a “normal” meat-based In the agriculture industry, methane is produced diet, (2) a healthy diet based on significant fruit and through enteric fermentation, which is a process of live- vegetable portions and decreased meat portions, (3) a stock digestion, and manure management.10 Yet the re- vegetarian diet, including egg and dairy consumption, lated environmental damage stretches far beyond direct and (4) a completely plant-based diet. GHG emissions emissions. In fact, the effects of the livestock industry under the meat-based reference scenario were predicted are readily apparent in practically every form of environmental destruction: climate change, loss of biodiversity, defor- An innocuous shift in diet com- estation, erosion, spread of disease, air bined with a continually increasing pollution and water pollution.11 The use of hormones, antibiotics, chemicals and population has resulted in a global pesticides in agriculture and husbandry demand for meat five times greater also contribute to environmental degra- “ than the demand fifty years prior.

PENN SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW | 19 JULIANA SANDFORD

to increase by 51%, from 2005/2007 to 2050. Of the latter three trends, food-related GHG The conclusions of the scientific emissions were predicted to be, community make the causal relationship respectively, 7% greater, 45% less and 55% less than 2005/2007 between a global meat-based diet and baseline emissions and 29%, 63% increased GHG emissions indisputable. and 70% less, respectively than “ 2050 reference scenario emissions.18 Other research pre- emissions and higher energy efficiency and the converse dicts that food-related emissions, if diets do not change, to hold for animal foods.21 Another study published in will increase from 7.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide Nature Climate Change found that global cattle and equivalent as of 2005 to 11.4 billion tons by 2050.19 The sheep production generates between 19 and 48 times conclusions of the scientific community make the causal more GHG emissions than does global protein-rich relationship between a global meat-based diet and in- plant food production.22 That difference extends to -wa creased GHG emissions—and therefore increased global ter consumption as well; the production of a standard warming—indisputable. American diet requires 4,200 gallons of water per day while a vegan diet requires just a fraction of that amount, Further research substantiates the superiority of a plant- totaling 300 gallons per day.23 Veganism, or at least veg- based diet over a meat-based one, at least in terms of etarianism, should be an easy lifestyle change by logic environmental effects. According to David Pimentel, a alone. researcher at Cornell University, 28 calories of fossil fuel energy are required to produce one calorie of meat pro- For many, such a diet change is completely inconceiv- tein but only 3.3 calories of fossil fuel energy are needed to able. For others, a diet technically compliant with veg- produce one calorie of grain protein.20 A study by Swedish anism may even be detrimental to personal health if not researchers examined twenty-two foods, their energy and nutritionally balanced. Fortunately, diets need not nec- their GHG emissions, ultimately finding higher protein essarily be an “all-or-nothing” decision, and shifts along content in plant-based foods to correlate with lower GHG the continuum of meat and dairy consumption can bring REDUCE, REUSE, GO VEGAN

about significant environmental benefits. For example, past its breaking point. Consider that for a moment. replacing red meat and dairy sources with other protein Consider also that significant reductions in GHG emis- sources or vegetables as little as once a week can reduce sions are much easier to make in the livestock industry emissions as much as always buying locally, as found by a by diet changes, as well as improved efficiency, than in Carnegie Mellon University study.24 A full shift from red other industries which require switching to renewable meat and dairy to chicken, fish and eggs reduces GHG energy sources entirely for equivalent reductions. Con- emissions more than five times as much as complete sider the health benefits, ethics and environmental grace (and unrealistic) localization, while a full shift to a vege- of veganism. tarian diet reduces emissions approximately eight times as much as localization.25 To reiterate the Oxford study, each step toward lesser meat and dairy consumption is a Take the first step: Give positive one, though no dietary shift is ultimately com- Meatless Monday a try. parable to a completely plant-based diet. Juliana Sandford is a freshman in the College intending to study Philosophy, Politics and Fortunately, the damage done by our staggering meat Economics and Sustainability Management. consumption is not entirely irreversible. The lifespan of She is originally from Pittsburgh. carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is difficult to measure but has been estimated in the hundreds of years. Meth- ane, however, stays in the atmosphere for only twelve years, making it significantly more reversible than carbon dioxide emissions. Revisiting the GWP measures of the two gases, methane’s relative GWPsof 86 over a twenty year period and of about 100 over a five year period evidence its short-term intensity. Methane is an intense warmer within the short term but is not persistent in the long term. This is two-sided: methane can either provide immediate relief from current warming or tip the planet PENN SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW | 21 JULIANA SANDFORD

CITATIONS 14 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Vaclav Smil, “Nitrogen and Food Production: Proteins for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014, EPA 430-R- Human Diets,” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 16-002 (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 2016), ES-8. 31, no. 2 (March 2002): 13026-131, DOI: 10.1579/0044-7447- 31.2.126. 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Greenhouse Gas 15 Equivalencies Calculator,” accessed December 10, 2016, Vrbicek, “The World’s Leading Driver of Climate Change.” https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalen- 16 Editorial Board, “Is Meat Sustainable?”12. cies-calculator. 17 Marco Springmann, H. Charles J. Godfray, Mike Rayner, and 3 IPCC: Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer Peter Scarborough, “Analysis and Valuation of the Health and (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution Climate Change Cobenefits of Dietary Change,” Proceedings of of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 15 (2016): 4146-151, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Geneva: DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1523119113. IPCC, 2014), 47. 18 Springmann et al., “Analysis and Valuation of the Health and 4 U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Cobenefits of Dietary Change,” 4147. Sinks: 1990-2014, 2-22. 19 Bobby Magill, “Healthy Diet May Reduce Gas; Greenhouse 5 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, 46. Gas, That Is,”Climate Central, last modified March 21, 2016, http://www.climatecentral.org/news/diet-may-reduce-gas- ⁶ Andy Vrbicek, “The World’s Leading Driver of Climate greenhouse-gas- that-is-20160. Change: Animal Agriculture,” New Harvest, last modified January 18, 2015, http://www.new-harvest.org/ the_world_s_ 20 Vrbicek, “The World’s Leading Driver of Climate Change.” leading_driver_of_climate_change_animal_agriculture. 21 Hawkins, “Plant-Based Diets in Climate Change Mitigation ⁷ Henning Steinfeld, Pierre Gerber, T. D. Wassenaar, Vincent and Resource Conservation.” Castel and Cees de Haan, Livestock’s Long Shadow (Rome: 22 Philip Ross, “Climate Change Can Be ‘Mitigated’ By ‘Re- Food and Agricultural Organization, 2006), 112. ducing Demand’ On Livestock, Scientists Say,” International ⁸ Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, “Livestock and Climate Business Times, last modified January 5, 2014, http://www. Change,” World Watch Magazine 22, no. 6 (November/Decem- ibtimes.com/climate- change-can-be-mitigated-reducing-de- ber 2009): 11, accessed May 31, 2016, http://www.worldwatch. mand-livestock-scientists-say-1526806. org/files/pdf/ Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf. 23 Richard H. Schwartz, quoted in “Is Meat Sustainable?” 14. ⁹ Vrbicek, “The World’s Leading Driver of Climate Change.” 24 Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews, “Food-Miles 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Sources of Green- and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the Unit- house Gas Emissions.” ed States,” Environmental Science & Technology 42, no. 10 (2008): 3512–3513, DOI: 10.1021/es702969f. 11 Editorial Board,“Is Meat Sustainable?” World Watch Mag- azine 17, no. 4 (July/August 2004): 12-19, accessed May 31, 25 Ibid. 2016, http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/EP174A.pdf. 26 Vrbicek, “The World’s Leading Driver of Climate Change.” 12 Irana W. Hawkins, “Plant-Based Diets in Climate Change 27 Patti Nyman, “Methane vs. Carbon Dioxide: A Greenhouse Mitigation and Resource Conservation,” Vegetarian Nutrition Gas Showdown,” One Green Planet, last modified September (2015), accessed May 31, 2016, http://vndpg.org/wp-content/ 30, 2014, http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/ uploads/2015/02/ Climate-Change-RD.pdf. methane-vs-carbon- dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/. 13 Steinfeld et al., Livestock’s Long Shadow 39, 43.

22 | PENN SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW