Picture This: Putting Beef and Climate Into Perspective

Beef has gotten a very bad rap when it comes to climate, and in the popular media and among activists gets presented as if reducing beef consumption is a number one priority and one of the most important things we can do to reduce our impact on climate.

However, in their research about influencing consumer choices to reduce climate impact McFadden, et al. (2022) make a very important point. We have to consider more than just the potential impact we have on climate change when it comes to decisions about food, shelter and transportation. We have to look at the big picture, the costs, benefits and 'plasticity' - how impactable are people when it comes to changing behavior? What has the greatest realistic expected impact on climate? 

When thinking about the problem this way, one question that comes to mind is - how many other seemingly arbitrary choices (other than reducing beef consumption) could we make in our daily lives that would have a similar climate benefit?  

Let Me Count the Ways (other arbitrary ways to reduce your carbon footprint)

Another article by Obringer, et al. (2021) provides some interesting insights about the carbon footprint associated with various ways we use the internet:

• Globally, the Internet use has a carbon footprint ranging from 28 to 63 g CO2 equivalent per gigabyte (GB)
• The world median is 32.3 g CO2 per GB
• The U.S. median is 9% higher
• Common streaming services require 7 GB per hour of streaming using ultra HD quality video and have a carbon footprint of 441 g CO2e/hr
• Streaming 4 hrs/day with HD quality video produces about 53 kg CO2e/month
• Streaming at a lower quality SD video would reduce CO2e/month to about 2.5 kg
• Standard video conference services use ~ 2.5 GB/hr associated with 157 g CO2e/hr
• 15 one hour meetings a week equate to a monthly carbon footprint of 9.4 kg
• By turning off the video camera at an individual level, monthly CO2e emissions could be reduced from 9.4 kg to 377 g CO2e. This is equivalent to enough emissions savings to offset charging a smart phone each night for over 3 years (1151 days). 

Separate research reported in MIT Technology review indicates that training common AI models that underpin a number of the technologies and apps we leverage every day and will continue to use in the future can produce as much as 5 times the lifetime CO2 emissions of a single car (Strubell et al., 2019 & Haoarchive, 2019) 

Framing Up the Discussion

Obringer, et al. (2021) certainly motivates us to think of a number of arbitrary ways we can reduce our carbon footprint other than making dietary changes when we think of all the various ways we use internet services in the age of Zoom meetings, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and smart phones. But let's take another look at beef consumption. 

• In the U.S. the average consumer consumes about 60 pounds of beef/year
• On a monthly basis that equates to 5 lbs or about 2.26 kg/beef/person
• According to Rotz (2019) 1 kg of U.S. beef produces 22 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions

So if an individual consumer gives up U.S. beef for a month that equates to a reduction of about 50 kg CO2e emissions. It looks like the emissions related to beef consumption may be very similar to streaming HD video on a monthly basis given the assumptions above. 

On the other hand, it looks like giving up beef for a month would have a much bigger impact on climate than giving up your Zoom camera for a month! More than 2x the impact. 

But that is not even the full picture. We also have to consider how livestock emissions differ from emissions related to many other arbitrary things we do on a daily basis. Sure CO2 is CO2 but there's more to the story and that requires consideration of the biogenic carbon cycle pictured below:

That little cloud in the sketch represents the carbon footprint of beef - and if we are considering U.S. beef it represents less than 1/2 of 1%  (i.e. < .5%) of global greenhouse gas emissions. If all U.S. consumers give up U.S. beef, then that little cloud completely goes away. On the other hand, if you decide to consume the same average amount of beef you have consumed for decades, that decision is not adding any new net GHG emissions to the atmosphere. We just keep recycling that same little cloud over and over. And as production technologies and management practices improve, we can eat the same amount of beef or more and make the cloud even smaller. But it doesn't get any bigger and on the net beef consumption doesn't have any new net impact on the climate. We also have to consider tradeoffs related to nutrient density to really grasp all the implications related to food choices and climate see here and here.

But, as pictured below, the story changes when we shift our attention to many other arbitrary choices we make on any given day: 

Almost every thing else we do that creates CO2 emissions bypasses the biogenic carbon cycle and adds new and long lasting greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. If we give up U.S. beef, that little cloud goes away (and as stated before has a minimal impact on a global scale). But for example, every time you turn on your web cam or stream HD, you are contributing to adding new and permanent long lasting GHG emissions to the atmosphere. So maybe according to the facts above, the little cloud you are recycling from monthly beef consumption is 2X larger than the cloud you are producing from your Zoom meeting. However, every time you zoom you are making another little cloud. And those little clouds can add up to be much bigger and never go away even if you eventually stop 'zooming.' On the other hand - every month you are streaming video you are producing a new cloud just as big as the one that's just being recycled if you consume beef, and its having a permanent and lasting impact on climate. 

There are many other little things we do just as arbitrary as the decision to consume U.S. beef that also have important if not more consequential implications for climate change.

What should we do? What is the most important thing you can do to have an impact on climate? If we are really concerned about this we have to ask ourselves when it comes to combating climate change, which behaviors and barriers should we be targeting to have the greatest impact? 

As a personal choice some might say why not give up beef and also do other things to fight climate change - we should be doing everything we can. Many might agree that is a good idea - but being good isn't enough for an idea to scale effectively and always have the impact we desire. Trying to scale one idea based on beef consumption can risk drawing attention and resources away from more effective strategies. It could lead to odd and distracted behaviors like having a salad delivered by Uber Eats instead of a steak and thinking every order like this is doing your little part to save the planet as pictured below:

A broader perspective asks, how should we prioritize our time, attention and resources TODAY to have the greatest impact tomorrow? Do we start with that little cloud from beef while we continue to livestream HD quality from Netflix and have our salad delivered by Uber eats?

Turning off the video essentially has an easy button and cuts off the unending flow of climate emissions. But changing culture and food systems requires a lot more effort with a much lower expected payoff. We'd be shooting for 1/2 of 1% of global GHG emissions max and that's not even a realistic goal. 

Related Readings:

Behavioral Economics, Beef, and Climate: https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2023/02/behavioral-economics-beef-and-climate.html 

Training a single AI model can emit as much carbon as five cars in their lifetimes: Deep learning has a terrible carbon footprint. By Karen Haoarchive.  June 6, 2019 https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/06/06/239031/training-a-single-ai-model-can-emit-as-much-carbon-as-five-cars-in-their-lifetimes/ 

References:

Estimated micronutrient shortfalls of the EAT–Lancet planetary health diet.Beal, Ty et al.The Lancet Planetary Health, Volume 7, Issue 3, e233 - e237

McFadden BR, Ferraro PJ, Messer KD (2022) Private costs of carbon emissions abatement by limiting beef consumption and vehicle use in the United States. PLOS ONE 17(1): e0261372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261372

Obringer, R., Rachunok, B., Maia-Silva, D., Arbabzadeh, M., Nateghi, R., & Madani, K. (2021). The overlooked environmental footprint of increasing Internet use. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 167, [105389]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105389

C. Alan Rotz, Senorpe Asem-Hiablie, Sara Place, Greg Thoma, Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems, Volume 169, 2019, Pages 1-13, ISSN 0308-521X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005.

Smedman A, Lindmark-Månsson H, Drewnowski A, Edman AK. Nutrient density of beverages in relation to climate impact. Food Nutr Res. 2010 Aug 23;54. doi: 10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5170. PMID: 20806074; PMCID: PMC2924839.

Strubell, Emma & Ganesh, Ananya & Mccallum, Andrew. (2019). Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP. 3645-3650. 10.18653/v1/P19-1355.

Behavioral Economics, Beef, and Climate

Recently I've written a number of posts related to the behavioral economics of food choices, beef consumption and climate impacts.

Picture This: Putting Beef and Climate into Perspective. This post summarizes some of the the arguments found below and illustrates the tradeoffs and numerous arbitrary choices we make on a daily basis and their climate impact. 

Nudging Back: Turning Off Your Camera May Be Good for the Climate.  Beef seems to get a bad rap regarding climate impact and there is a lot of attention being paid to reducing beef consumption. In this post I discuss how many other arbitrary behaviors (based on recent research related to internet usage) we could change that may even be more impactful than dietary changes. This may be especially true when you consider how hard it is to change behavior and the relevant costs and tradeoffs involved. 

The Ethics of Dietary Nudges and Behavior Change Focused on Climate and Sustainability. In this post I discuss some recent research related to nudges used to impact food choices favoring vegetarian vs. meat based options. It is important when designing for behavior change that choice architectures reflect the science and honestly represent tradeoffs that are relevant to the context and particulars of circumstances and place and the importance of ethics when it comes to scaling what works.

Canceling Science and Monetizing Outrage. In this post I discuss a recent NYT article's treatment of scientist Frank Mitloehner whose research focuses on the impact of beef related GHG emissions and how changing business models brought on by digital media can bias public perceptions and amplify misinformation. 

The discussion in the posts linked above actually get much broader than beef. For more related posts see all posts with the  behavioral economics tag.

Nudging Back: Turning Off Your Camera May Be Good for the Climate

How many of us have been nudged during a zoom meeting to turn on your camera? In recent research (Obringer, et al. 2021) published in the journal Resources, Conservation and Recycling, they have attempted to quantify the carbon footprint of using your camera during a virtual meeting. Can this new research be used to nudge back and keep your camera off in the name of improving your company's ESG reporting? Should we be putting more energy in nudging this direction vs. focusing on more difficult dietary behavior changes? 

Background

In a recent post I wrote about the ethics of dietary nudges focused on meat consumption. Particularly I discussed Blondin et al. (2022). In that article they investigated the use of descriptive messages as a means to nudge consumers to choose plant based foods over meat. Below is one of the messages using small change-big impact framing (which they found to be the most impactful in their research) to nudge consumers to choose a vegetarian dish over meat:

"Each of us can make a positive difference for the planet. Swapping just one meat dish for a plant-based one saves greenhouse gas emissions that are equivalent to the energy used to charge your phone for two years. Your small change can make a big difference."

Over the years I have thought a lot about the focus on meat, and particularly beef consumption, as a way to reduce our carbon foot print. The nudge above gives the impression that you could make a big difference in relation to the climate by choosing a salad over steak. Similarly I've been intrigued by other popular movements with similar goals like Meatless Mondays. 

There is a clear ceiling on the impact we can have when it comes to beef consumption. Even if we eliminated from our diets all beef produced and consumed in the U.S. it would reduce global GHG emissions by less than 1/2 of 1%. (EPA GHG Emissions Inventory, Rotz et al, 2018). 

Are these movements and the language used above giving people the impression they are making a bigger difference with regard to climate change than they really are? Could they be distractions from more impactful behaviors? 

Nudging for Impact

McFadden, et al. (2022) discusses important considerations related to the potential impact of nudges given consumer plasticity (willingness and ability to change) and realistic assessments of climate impact. (Realistic assessments of impact and ethics were the primary focus of my previous post.) 

McFadden, et al. discuss how challenging and costly dietary changes can be given strong consumer preferences. They find:

"our estimates imply that it would cost at least $642 per tCO2e to reduce GHG emissions by inducing 50% of our study sample to eliminate beef consumption...currently the price to offset a tCO2e (based on existing markets for carbon offsets) is between $10 to $13." 

When thinking about the problem this way, one question that comes to mind is - how many other seemingly arbitrary choices (other than reducing beef consumption) could we make in our daily lives that would have a similar climate benefit?  

Let Me Count the Ways (other arbitrary ways to reduce your carbon footprint)

The article mentioned above by Obringer, et al. (2021) provides some interesting insights about the carbon footprint associated with various ways we use the internet:

• Globally, the Internet use has a carbon footprint ranging from 28 to 63 g CO2 equivalent per gigabyte (GB)
• The world median is 32.3 g CO2 per GB
• The U.S. median is 9% higher
• Common streaming services require 7 GB per hour of streaming using ultra HD quality video and have a carbon footprint of 441 g CO2e/hr
• Streaming 4 hrs/day with HD quality video produces about 53 kg CO2e/month
• Streaming at a lower quality SD video would reduce CO2e/month to about 2.5 kg
• Standard video conference services use ~ 2.5 GB/hr associated with 157 g CO2e/hr
• 15 one hour meetings a week equate to a monthly carbon footprint of 9.4 kg
• By turning off the video camera at an individual level, monthly CO2e emissions could be reduced from 9.4 kg to 377 g CO2e. This is equivalent to enough emissions savings to offset charging a smart phone each night for over 3 years (1151 days). 

Separate research reported in MIT Technology review indicates that training common AI models that underpin a number of the technologies and apps we leverage every day and will continue to use in the future can produce as much as 5 times the lifetime CO2 emissions of a single car (Strubell et al., 2019 & Haoarchive, 2019) 

Framing Up the Discussion

Obringer, et al. (2021) certainly motivates us to think of a number of arbitrary ways we can reduce our carbon footprint other than making dietary changes when we think of all the various ways we use internet services in the age of Zoom meetings, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and smart phones. But let's take another look at beef consumption. 

• In the U.S. the average consumer consumes about 60 pounds of beef/year
• On a monthly basis that equates to 5 lbs or about 2.26 kg/beef/person
• According to Rotz (2019) 1 kg of U.S. beef produces 22 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions
• So if an individual consumer gives up U.S. beef for a month that equates to a reduction of about 50 kg CO2e emissions 

It looks like the emissions related to beef consumption may be very similar to streaming HD video on a monthly basis given the assumption above. 

Just based on the facts above- it looks like giving up beef for a month would have a much bigger impact on climate than giving up your Zoom camera for a month! More than 2x the impact. 

On the other hand -  giving up our Netflix binge could have the same climate impact as completely giving up beef! 

It's not quite so simple. 

While it seems like we are making apples to apples CO2e comparisons we have to consider other differences in the way GHG emissions behave especially as this relates to methane and how it is factored into CO2e calculations. See below:

Methane emissions associated with routine meat consumption do not represent a new net lasting contribution to GHG emissions, but instead are a recycling of already existing methane emissions. However, turning on your zoom camera or streaming HD video is a new behavior that leads to the release of new sources of methane and CO2 with long term permanent warming effects on the climate. The decision to continue with routine beef consumption has different implications for the climate than the decision to pump new methane emissions into the atmosphere by turning on your camera or binging with HD video quality. 

We also have to ask ourselves - which behavior is the most impactable? Going back to McFadden, et al. (2022) when it comes to combating climate change, which behaviors and barriers should we be targeting to have the greatest impact? People are already very inclined to turn off their cameras during a meeting - and there is literally and easy button to do that! Reducing how much we stream video is relatively easy change to make. But changing diets is extremely difficult. There is no easy button.  When we consider the tradeoffs involved (more discussion below) and fully incorporate the ramifications of the biogenic carbon cycle, in addition to consumer plasticity, reducing beef consumption may not be the top priority. 

We could think of it this way. On a given day, if you decide to consume the same average amount of beef you have consumed for decades, that decision is not adding any new net GHG emissions to the atmosphere. But every time you turn on your web cam or stream HD, you are contributing to adding new and permanent long lasting GHG emissions to the atmosphere. 

It is certainly true that if you chose NOT to have the beef there is a climate benefit - and the numbers shared above approximately reflect that. If everyone in the U.S. made the same decision 365 days/year there is a minimal upper limit on that impact, but there would certainly be a reduction in GHG emissions. If we stop eating beef, the emissions from the last decade go away with it due to the biogenic carbon cycle. Even if it takes decades to change the behavior this is true (based on beef consumption trends and technological advances and remember with constant levels of beef consumption over time new emissions aren't added and don't accumulate b/c they are simply being recycled)

But if we wait a decade to start turning off our web cams or downgrading to SD all those past emissions stay where they are and continue to warm the planet. From a behavior change perspective the urgency to turn of the camera and downgrade our streaming seems much greater. 

Some might agree that it makes sense to do both, but it would seem remiss to focus on beef consumption only while ignoring all the many other arbitrary behaviors we could target that may be more urgent and more impactable from a behavior change perspective.

A Path Toward Better Framing and Nudging

In a previous post, I already covered some of the implications of how we frame food choices and the impact on climate. But perhaps the framing of beef vs. salad is completely wrong to begin with. When framing food choices, are we making a mistake when we discuss what is healthy vs. unhealthy in the context of food groups (meat vs. vegetables) or macro nutrients (fat vs. protein vs. carbs)? When we add climate, ethics, and politics to the recipe do we risk taking this to orthorexic extremes that end up causing as much harm as good?

These kind of broad categorizations can limit our thinking and fail to capture the nuance in the tradeoffs involved. When it comes to balancing these tradeoffs a framing that considers specific context (knowledge of the circumstances of time and place), individual consumer preferences (plasticity), nutrient density (see here and here), climate impact (accurately reflecting the behavior of carbon and methane), and technological change is essential.

Related Posts

The Ethics of Dietary Nudges and Behavior Change Focused on Climate and Sustainability. https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-ethics-of-dietary-nudges-and.html

Innovation, Disruption, and Low(er) Carbon Beef https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/01/innovation-disruption-and-lower-carbon.html 

Facts, Figures, or Fiction: Unwarranted Criticisms of the Biden Administration's Failure to Target Methane Emissions from Livestock. https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html 

Can Capitalism Be A Force For Good When it Comes to Food? https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/07/can-capitalism-be-force-for-good-when.html

References: 

Blondin, Stacy & Attwood, Sophie & Vennard, Daniel & Mayneris, Vanessa. (2022). Environmental Messages Promote Plant-Based Food Choices: An Online Restaurant Menu Study. World Resources Institute. 10.46830/wriwp.20.00137. 

McFadden BR, Ferraro PJ, Messer KD (2022) Private costs of carbon emissions abatement by limiting beef consumption and vehicle use in the United States. PLOS ONE 17(1): e0261372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261372

Training a single AI model can emit as much carbon as five cars in their lifetimes: Deep learning has a terrible carbon footprint. By Karen Haoarchive.  June 6, 2019 https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/06/06/239031/training-a-single-ai-model-can-emit-as-much-carbon-as-five-cars-in-their-lifetimes/ 

Obringer, R., Rachunok, B., Maia-Silva, D., Arbabzadeh, M., Nateghi, R., & Madani, K. (2021). The overlooked environmental footprint of increasing Internet use. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 167, [105389]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105389

C. Alan Rotz, Senorpe Asem-Hiablie, Sara Place, Greg Thoma, Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems, Volume 169, 2019, Pages 1-13, ISSN 0308-521X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005.

Strubell, Emma & Ganesh, Ananya & Mccallum, Andrew. (2019). Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP. 3645-3650. 10.18653/v1/P19-1355.

Notes: 

The methodology used by Obringer may be subject to criticism and may not consider long term emission reductions due to efficiencies produced by technological change over time (not unlike beef production). I'm using their results as motivation for a discussion about considering the tradeoffs and nuances often left out of discussions associated with food choices. We can also recognize that zoom and other technologies may have had a significant role to play in reducing travel and related transportation and other emissions related to in person meetings. However, at the margin, these technologies still lead to ongoing permanent emissions and warming effects compared to beef consumption.