Well, he won! And with a new president in the Oval Office we expect to see the US joining the world of climate action once again. Obama has very publicly committed to an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Never mind whether the date is soon enough – this is a huge advance on the current administration position.
Not to be outdone, the UK has also bravely committed to the same target . These are all fine words, but I do wonder if the politicians really understand what those targets actually mean. Once again the answer – or problem – lies in the soil.
As a planet we emit about 42Gt of CO2 equivalent each year , but not all of this comes from power stations and gas guzzlers; a surprising amount comes from agriculture. The International Panel on Climate Change produced a Special Assessment report looking at agriculture, and concluded that emissions from livestock and soils were somewhere around 7Gt per year of CO2 equivalent . Methane from livestock and rice paddies adds up to 0.9Gt of C equivalent a year (3.3Gt of CO2e) and N2O from cultivated soils and livestock adds a further 1Gt C equivalent a year (3.7Gt CO2e).
So, even ignoring the emissions from making fertiliser, the food we eat creates 17% of global emissions today and of course it won’t stop there. As population grows, so food consumption will grow. The US is acquiring one new citizen every 11 seconds , which amounts to over 100 million people by 2050! Even the UK’s population is expected to grow by around 20% between now and 2030 – never mind 2050. The second dimension in this is of course wealth. As we become wealthier we tend to eat more, and eat more meat. We all know we shouldn’t but I fear it takes an awful lot of willpower to overcome all those millions of years of evolution that prime us to grab what food we can in case there isn’t any tomorrow.
The problem that this raises is disturbing. Unless we make some major breakthrough in the way we grow our crops and meat, our agriculture emissions will rise by 20%-30% or more and we will need around 20% of current emissions simply to support the biotic processes that feed us. Well, if you need 20% of emissions for food, and have promised a cut of 80% of emissions, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that there’s nothing left for industry, transport, lighting, or heating our homes.
In effect both the UK and the US have committed to a zero fossil fuel economy. Is that what the policy makers really had in mind? I hope it is but fear they think an 80% cut is just a little more difficult than a 60% cut – which is really only a 40% cut but a bit more ….
If they really intend a zero fossil fuel economy I wholeheartedly applaud them – but it does raise some interesting questions about some of our current energy policy. Anyone for a third Heathrow runway?
References:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/24/climate-change-carbon-emissions-miliband
WRI 2006
IPCC Special Report Land Use, Land use change and Forestry – table 1-3.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
December 3, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“… it takes an awful lot of willpower to overcome all those millions of years of evolution that prime us to grab what food we can in case there isn’t any tomorrow.”
hmmm… does it really? more willpower than the presumably equally formative and biologically motivated desire to club any nearby woman over the head and spread your seed accordingy? We dont let animalistic motives dictate our behaviour in other ‘moral’ fields so this psuedo-evolutionary justification doenst really cut it.
As odd as it may seem, it is easier to stop eating meat than to stop driving a car or flying in our modern world. We are omnivores and we have a choice. Just like you choose to cycle to work or choose to use low energy lightbulbs – you can choose to stop eating meat.
December 3, 2008 at 4:22 pm
P.S. Excellent article mind you. ;o)