Climate Change: Should we Blame Cows for the Methane?

Methane is a very potent "greenhouse" gas. Beef cattle are being blamed for belching a lot of methane. So let's go investigate!

 Here's a chart of world atmospheric methane 1984-2023. 

The increase was about 17% overall. Notice that the bottom of the y-axis is not at zero, so visually it seems more extreme than 17%. 

Let's look at the rise in U.S. beef availability from 1940 to 1975...

So it must be the beef! 

But wait, we have other things to look at...  Oil production up 30% since 1980:

Meat consumption data worldwide:

Total (not per capita) beef consumption worldwide was only up a slight percentage over the recent 33 years, whereas poultry had the greatest percentage increase by far. Also notice, beef consumption rose a very slight amount between 2000 and 2006, just about the same small rise as any other six-year period. Methane levels "leveled off" during those years, but clearly not in association with any change in beef consumption.

Vegetable Oil production, dominated by palm, soybean, rapeseed (Canola), and sunflower: Well over 500% increase from 1980. Palm oil had a nine-fold increase, and is significant in its environmental impact through deforestation. Sources: researchgate.net and OurWorldinData.org.

FINALLY, let's look at the change in meat supply in the U.S. (pounds per capita) from 1980. Beef is down 25%, Chicken is up 90%. Dear Americans, you dutifully complied with what you were told for four decades ("eat less red meat"), worldwide beef production increased only slightly, and yet world methane levels continued to rise. Beef consumption has remained at about 55 to 65 pounds per year per capita for the past few decades in the US, well below the peak of the 1970s. 

Another one, showing US beef production remaining fairly constant over the past two decades, which agrees with a slight decline per-capita.

(source: Total production of beef in the U.S. 2024 | Statista )

What does this all mean? From these charts we can only form Hypotheses, not infer truths. We cannot say with scientific rigor that fuel oil, chicken, pork, and vegetable oil (palm+soybean) production are definitely the cause of methane increases, although they increased in tandem worldwide. I'm the last person that would blame "chicken" as if it were one thing, for example, knowing that production methods vary from country to country and farm to farm. Even though it takes fuel oil to raise beef cattle (due to a not-very-efficient use of grain), the fuel production increased 30% for reasons other than beef; clearly, cattle are not the "smoking gun" here.

The main takeaway is this: cutting back on your personal beef consumption (and increasing chicken, processed foods with seed oils, and processed fake meats as a consequence) is probably not going to be helpful in reducing greenhouse gases.

Furthermore, it would be detrimental to pass laws that limit or tax beef production in the US, which might only serve to *increase imports* of beef from countries that have production methods worse for the environment.

Fellow Americans, a more impactful way to reduce your carbon footprint would be to reduce your number of cross-country trips (by air or car) by just one per year.* This is the real "inconvenient truth". I know it's difficult emotionally; because you could forgive yourself for flying once or twice a year, but your daily diet is visible to the people close to you and they have been convinced that eating red meat is bad.

Data:

* Flight from Seattle to Wash. DC = 524 kg of CO2eq per passenger. (1048 kg round-trip)

* Beef, one serving = 1.87 kg CO2eq (Average US production methods, lower than world average). Thus, 560 servings of beef are equivalent to one round-trip flight.

* Wood-burning fireplaces: Typically emit about 11.1 kg of CO2 per hour (plus other chemicals) when burning seasoned hardwood. Thus, twelve or more servings of beef are equivalent to two hours of enjoying a fireplace.

 (source: Perplexity.ai search, several sources found) 

Good luck to all!