Source: The Jakarta Post. (Shutterstock/photka)
Will our earth going to be able to sustain an estimated 10 billion people by 2050? When most people think of environmental protection, the first things that usually come to mind are factories releasing heaps of smoke into the sky, huge cities with traffic jams with each car releasing its share of CO2 into the atmosphere, beautiful forests being clear cut, all of those gasses remaining in the atmosphere to the point where one cannot see the stars at night. However, there is another elephant in the room, or in this case, a cow.
Most of meat humans eat come from cows and meat is not only delicious but also essential to a balanced and healthy diet as it is filled not only with essential amino acids but a host of vitamins and nutrients. How are cows related to climate change? The truth is that as the world’s population increases, more and more people are including meat such as beef into their diets. Cows burp – that sounds normal enough – people do that too. However, cows release the trapped carbon from plants through photosynthesis when they eat grass and burp, which was one of our last lines of defense against global warming.
Cows are not the only suspect in climate change, other animals in the meat industry such as chicken also contribute to global warming but in a different way. For chicken, it is more of the process to raise and feed the animals which involves fossil fuel-powered machinery and chemicals which release other dangerous gases such as nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. The same machinery and chemicals are also used for crops to be consumed by humans, but it requires much more energy and resources to raise livestock for human consumption rather than humans consuming the crops directly. As the primary greenhouse gas, people generally focus on carbon dioxide. Although it is true that a buildup of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can lead to the planet’s temperature increasing, other gases such as nitrous oxide and methane released from the meat industry also contribute approximately 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. With Elon Musk revolutionizing the transport industry with his electric cars, it is also time we revolutionize the meat industry and attack global warming from all angles.
Possible Solutions
Now that it is understood that the meat industry is part of the climate change problem, what can be done to solve this problem? Some scientists have proposed the uncreative solution of simply taxing meat. The problem with this proposed solution is that many people who love meat and higher prices will irritate many people. Another thing to consider with this solution is food insecurity. Some people, particularly those in places with extreme climate such as Nunavut, already face a food crisis. This is due to the harsh climate of these regions, much of the food must be flown in by airplane which is far more expensive than producing food locally or the traditional method of shipping. Solutions should help the environment but should not push people below the poverty line in doing so.
A second and more obvious solution some are putting forward is to attempt to change human desires. This would be simply to convince people to eat less meat and consume alternatives such as vegetables and or soy. The problem with this is that it would be undemocratic to force people to a certain diet. In the way of persuasion not everyone would be convinced and would voluntarily change their diets.
A third solution proposed is injecting cows with a vaccine designed to help the cow’s body to produce antibodies. These antibodies would fight the certain microbes in the cow’s gut which are responsible for the formation of methane. Theoretically, this would drastically reduce the amount of methane released by cows in the form of burps. However, this solution is still being studied and there is not yet any real hard evidence to prove that it will work. Over centuries cows’ guts have evolved to ruminate and thus emit CH4, trying to ‘reverse’ this evolution may possibly create other problems. This may include side effects that may endanger the animal’s life long or short term, and possible side effects that may contaminate the cow’s meat and or milk such that it may not be safe for human consumption.
A fourth solution proposed is the introduction of methane-reducing feed additives into the animal’s diet. These additives may be all or include some of the following: natural supplements and compounds such as tannins and seaweed, synthetic chemicals, fats, and or oils. Synthetic chemicals can reduce methane emissions; however, there are various restrictions in numerous countries to its use because of health risks. Tannins and seaweed are a good option and can potentially reduce methane emissions from the cow by up to 80%, efforts are currently encouraging this to be used commercially but there is still more to be done to fight climate change. Fats and oils have the most practicality for commercial use and they can have dual benefit as they are a source of energy to the animal while simultaneously reducing the animal’s methane emissions by up to 20%.
However, we should consider the fifth option which is reengineering and redesigning the farms that house animals. This is not a comprehensive solution but rather a theoretical tool that scientists, the government, engineers, and meat producers may want to consider and work collaboratively so that we can collectively reduce our emission output.
These newly redesigned farms would have a roof cover like a greenhouse. It would have to be large so that the animals would have space to wander around yet small enough so that the air can be controlled and regulated. What this means is that methane would not be allowed to escape as the entire farm is covered but air would be allowed in to ventilate and allow the animals to breathe. Rather than letting the animals eat grass and wander around as what is currently done, food would have to be provided to the animal, most likely through the feed additive option as discussed earlier. This is because it would be very expensive to build a greenhouse as large as some current farms. This would make it possible to capture and store the methane gas rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.
This of course is not an exact blueprint but rather a guideline, an idea that various expert engineers from around the world would need to be consulted to devise the most cost efficient and effective way of redesigning these farms. This would be beneficial because methane captured could also be used as a fuel source, thus reducing our reliance on non-renewable energy sources, most of which contribute to global warming.
A similar approach is already being done for landfill sites. It was not until recently that scientists discovered that landfill sites were also contributing to global warming. This is because when waste decomposes it also releases methane and other gases into the atmosphere. Therefore, landfill sites are now covered, and the gases are captured and reused for other purposes. There will be challenges to this such as a high upfront cost of building new farms with higher specifications as well as converting others. It would be unwise to leave the entirety of this cost to the private sector as they will most likely pass it on to consumers in the form of higher prices. This will be counterproductive towards to the original aim which was to continue to allow people to eat meat without having to pay more.
Bình luận