2017 Engage Global Competition: Technology for a Sustainable Future:
In contemplating what technology of the next 10 years will have the
greatest impact on reducing climate change risk a reasonable starting
point is asking what activities we do today have the greatest impact
in creating climate change risk. Quite possibly our food and agriculture choices may be the most
impactful. A frequently referenced 2006 report of the UN Food
and agriculture organization titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow”
makes the case that 18% of greenhouse gases come from livestock. This
alone should be enough to focus our attention on the role of animal
agriculture, but an analysis by the Worldwatch Institute in 2009
suggests that this report understates the issue. Their conclusion is that greenhouse gas impact
attributable to livestock production is 51%, more than half
of all greenhouse gases. Technologies that could cut into the
impact of livestock would significantly address climate change.
Progressive
animal
agronomists argue that how animals are raised is the problem.
Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are at the center of the problem. Allen
Savory argues that rotating grazing of dense herding of cattle
actually captures carbon by building top soil. Efforts to replicate Savory’s work have been equivocal at best.
There are at least two other
forms of agriculture that promote carbon sequestration. Both are in their early stages of development.
Biochar
is created by burning organic material in a low oxygen environment. The
char that remains can be added to certain soils where it remains
inert but builds topsoil and creates a habitat for microorganisms that
in turn promote agricultural yield.
Considering
the importance of soil microorganisms one approach is to directly
inoculate the soil with optimal microorganisms. Evidence shows that
inoculating the soil can
contribute to rapid topsoil growth, and increase productivity.
Regenerative agriculture enthusiasts have argued that such methods
applied to slightly over 10% of arable lands would compensate
for anthropogenic atmospheric carbon.
Another
approach to the
problem of the impact of livestock production is faux meat. Various
projects are underway to try to capture the gustatory
experience of eating meat in food that is not from animals or
animal byproducts. High-tech research has gone into some of these
efforts, but time will tell if a generally acceptable substitute can
be developed. Meat is not without its health risks, and it's possible
that imitation meat carry similar or even greater
risks. It’s worth remembering that trans-fats in margarine
were originally thought of as a healthier alternative to the saturated
fat of butter,
now the evidence is clear that trans-fats are worse.
Although there is no
reason why actions that are healthy for the planet would have to be
healthy for the individuals who take those actions, this does seems
to be the case in a general sense for individuals avoiding meat
dairy and eggs, and moving towards a more plant-based diet.
Climate
specialists at the UN
have called for individuals to avoid meat one day
a week. Some environmental activists go further adopting a vegan lifestyle in
order to model minimizing their climate footprint. In advanced economies the
percent of individuals who adopt a vegan diet are a drop in the bucket, ranging from a fraction of a
percent to 5%. Nonetheless there is some evidence to
suggest that vegan diets are on the rise and a greater number of
people are choosing meatless meals
at least some of the time.
Just
as the impact of carbon emissions from China's energy sector is a
great concern, in the last 30 years China's meat consumption has
increased 5 fold and currently represents over 1/4 of the worlds meat
consumption. unchecked this would continue to grow. Fortunately the
Chinese government has set goals to decrease meat consumption by 50%.
