Is it 14%, 18%, 24%, 34%, 51%, 53%, 66%, 87%, or 118%? There are a whole lot of percentage figures associated with the climate impact of animal agriculture. In this article, we will examine why there are such wide discrepancies and where the truth actually lies.
At Climate Healers, we’ve been saying 87% and now 118%, while most others seem to be stuck on 14% at the other end. So, what is the truth behind these numbers?
Two Questions
The two main questions around which scientists have been compiling animal agriculture’s climate impact estimates are:
A) How much of the annual climate impact is caused by animal agriculture?
B) How much of the cumulative climate impact is caused by animal agriculture?
While Question A is concerned with the rate of change in warming, Question B is concerned with the totality of warming since the pre-industrial era.
archived (Wayback Machine)
Where the Truth Lies
In reality, the estimates for both questions should take into account all 12 emissions components, not just a subset of them.
If we use ERF as the metric of choice, we can augment the 66% estimate with a COC component to answer Question B.
In order to answer Question A, we need to compute the derivative of the answer to Question B. This analysis is being conducted at the moment and we will report on our findings shortly.
…and the follow-up: Where the Truth Lies
You must log in or # to comment.