One of the things that I like most about my work is that I get the chance to dig into research and news reports about agriculture and climate change. You never know what you might find out in the wilds of the internet and I really do love to learn about new things, especially when those things pertain to production agriculture.
Have you got $20
One of the things that I like most about my work is that I get the chance to dig into research and news reports about agriculture and climate change. You never know what you might find out in the wilds of the internet and I really do love to learn about new things, especially when those things pertain to production agriculture.
Case in point, the other day I randomly came across a study from back in 2018 where researchers from Oklahoma State University (OSU) asked the question “what can environmentally conscious families who want to reduce their carbon footprint do to reduce the climate change impact of their diet while keeping beef on the menu?”
The answer it seems is around $20. In research published online in “The Rangeland Journal,” OSU agricultural economics experts Bailey Norwood and Lance Gagelman showed that an average household willing to spend just $20 annually on carbon offsets can achieve a carbon footprint similar to a vegetarian and continue eating conventionally raised beef.
“For many people, the sacrifice of $20 a year is much smaller than the sacrifice of giving up meat,” Norwood said. “This highlights the effectiveness of carbon offsets. The activities they engage in to reduce carbon emissions seem much more effective than dietary changes.”
In the study, the agricultural economics researchers looked at how households could reduce their carbon footprint by changing their diets and explored how households that want to continue eating beef could produce the same carbon footprint as vegetarians. Carbon offsets such as converting conventional tilled crop land to no-till and/or planting cover crops can help balance out the emission of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases into the environment. One credit equals 1 metric ton of carbon emission. (For context, consider a typical domestic flight is the equivalent of 1.4 metric tons.) The researchers also looked at the effects of replacing regular beef with grass fed beef, replacing beef with chicken or poultry or adopting a vegetarian diet.
Surprised by the results, Norwood said he thought the cost of using carbon offsets to achieve the footprint of a vegetarian would be much higher given the amount of attention beef draws as a carbon emitter.
“It turns out that in the grand scheme of things, although beef does emit more carbon than other meats and food, it doesn’t emit that much more, and there are relatively inexpensive ways of sequestering carbon,” he said.
The takeaway from this study is that even if you consider eating beef as a major contributor to climate change, people can still consume their steak and offset that impact with a relatively cheap credit purchase. It seems that beef isn’t the great climate villain some folks make it out to be.
If you would like more information on the study, you can check it out at https://www.publish.csiro. au/RJ/RJ17035 or you can find more information at https://news.okstate.edu/articles/agriculture/ 2018/18_beef_ghg.html. --- Clay Pope is on outreach contractor with the USDA Southern Plains Climate Hub. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of USDA or the Southern Plains Climate Hub. You can read more by Clay and listen to his podcast at https://southernplainsperspective.wordpress.com/ or by going to the USDA Southern Plains Climate Hub website.
