Unreported Livestock Emissions: Overlooking a Major Climate Culprit
The permanent damage can cause extreme fluxes in weather and the rising of the oceans. It is also more difficult to control than carbon due to one of its contributors being cows.

The meat industry is one of the leading causes of climate change. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 39 percent of all greenhouse gases are from livestock (Singh, 2014). Out of the 39 percent of farm animals used for consumption globally, 55 percent is from beef cattle. Per year, a single cow will release between 70 and 120 kilograms of methane, which is an alarming amount (Rohrer, n.d.). Looking at historical trends shows that these emissions will most likely not decrease. Throughout the past 50 years, agriculture has doubled. By the year 2050, methane emissions from agriculture are projected to increase as much as 70 percent (Singh, 2014).


Use original sources only.
Order your custom essay on

Tackling Climate Change: Livestock Emissions, Clean Power, and Global Agreements


This issue has been monitored more frequently by governments and scientists around the globe but is mostly ignored by the United States. In 2017, the nation surpassed China as the leading meat producer in the world, with a percentage of 19.63 (Halverson, 2016). During the Obama administration, a bill was passed in 2016 that renewed a provision preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from requiring livestock farmers to report the number of emissions they are producing (2016). This is going against a policy that the United States already has on monitoring emissions.

Out of the 42 sectors within the nation that produce greenhouse gas emissions, the meat industry is the only one not required to have an annual report (Izzo, 2018). Since there is no reporting on livestock emissions, the nation’s total percentage released annually is underestimated by a large amount. The reasoning for not including livestock emissions in an annual report may come from economic concerns. The United States economy is heavily influenced by the meat industry. Studies have shown Americans eat more meat per capita than any other country, which is beneficial to the nation’s economic growth (Halverson, 2016). However, scientists have stated a change in what we eat will produce a quicker and more noticeable impact on stopping climate change over altering the way fossil fuels are used.
Policy Reforms for Climate-Conscious Agriculture and Industry
Due to the fact that the Obama administration did not act upon this issue, President Donald Trump needs to take the initiative. In order to curb climate change in regard to farming and livestock, the Trump administration should make a policy requiring that livestock emissions be counted in the annual reports. This will allow the nation to have an accurate percentage to reference and share with other nations. Along with this addition, the President should incorporate other policies for agriculture. There are a handful of achievable changes farmers can utilize.

For example, what the cows are being fed. The majority of corn farmed in the United States is used for beef cattle. This is an extremely gassy food that is linked to severe digestive problems in the cow. In 2011, manure alone accounted for 16 percent of agriculture emissions (Halverson, 2016). If farmers started feeding their cows hay and mixing the plant alfalfa within, the amount of belching and manure would most likely decrease, which would reduce emissions due to a healthier diet.

Another take could be the amount of land we save for farming. Within the United States, the majority of farmed land is for cow feed. The amount of greenhouse emissions that come from harvesting the corn for the cows is astonishing. More land should be preserved for national parks or land that will not be able to be commercially touched. The issue of cows being related to climate change goes under the radar compared to other issues. More specifically, the concern about power plants and their carbon emissions.

One of the more apparent causes of greenhouse gas emissions is the issue with power plants. These businesses in the United States use roughly 30 percent of coal for their energy production (Negin, n.d.). Coal is a black, carbon-rich rock that was heavily mined up until the 1950s due to natural gas, nuclear power, wind, and solar coming into play. One of the reasons power plant emissions are looked at much more than that of agriculture is due to the number of health concerns. Besides carbon being emitted into the atmosphere, power plants also emit mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other toxic materials. These can all be linked to severe health concerns like brain damage, heart problems, and cancer.
Clean Power Plan: Health, Economic, and Climate Benefits
Despite these health concerns, President Donald Trump has recently stated that he is determined to bring back the coal industry in the United States. This is one climate change topic former President Barack Obama and current President Donald Trump disagree on. In 2015, the Obama administration announced a policy with a goal of reducing emissions given off by power plants. This plan was called the Clean Power Plan and happened to be the first policy addressing national standards for power plants and their carbon dioxide pollution. The main objective was reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants while utilizing a cleaner way to give Americans energy and making this possible for each state to easily achieve (“Overview of Greenhouse Gases,” 2018).

According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s website, the implementation of this plan would result in climate change benefits of $20 billion, health benefits of $14-$34 billion, and overall net benefits of $26-$45 billion (2018). In regard to health benefits, the Clean Power Plan was also projected to avoid 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work days and school days (2018). In order to be effective, the regulations would need to work for each state. Therefore, region, population size, and land mass were taken into consideration.

States had the choice to implement these regulations individually or regionally. The plan resulted in three different goals, “A rate-based state goal measured in pounds per megawatt hour (lb/MWh); A mass-based state goal measured in total short tons of CO2; A mass-based state goal with a new source complement measured in total short tons of CO2” (2018, 3). States were asked to start implementing the new regulations during the year 2022 and carry them out until 2029. In 2030, the results would be taken into consideration to see what the next steps would be and if there was any significant reduction in greenhouse and toxic emissions. Due to all the factors stated above, the two different plans the state could pick from were called the emission standards plan and the state measures plan. A description of each is stated below:

“Emission standards plan would include source-specific requirements ensuring all affected power plants within the state meet their required emissions performance rates or state-specific rate-based or mass-based goal. The state measures plan would include a mixture of measures implemented by the state, such as renewable energy standards and programs to improve residential energy efficiency that are not included as federally enforceable components of the plan. The plan may also include federally enforceable source-specific requirements.