The CO2 degradation product of of livestock - what occurs after 10 years of methane being converted to CO2 in the atmosphere - should NOT be attributed to livestock - because it represents CO2 that was just scrubbed from the atmosphere by the grass or feed crops the livestock ate. Exactly the same way that biofuels are considered "green". The speaker quotes the figure of 28 as the 100 year contribution of CO2 -equivalent for methane from cows. This is too high, for the above reason. On a ten year scale, CH4 is about 85 times as potent as CO2. Over 100 years, that would be 8.5, not 28 - fully 2/3rds less. Which means that the entire livestock industry, which produces a huge range of products beyond meat, milk, and eggs, is operating within the natural carbon - methane cycle, while fossil fuels are not. IOW, even a partial reduction in fossil fuel burning means that any livestock methane emissions are meaningless - they will not accumulate in the atmosphere.
The CO2 degradation product of of livestock - what occurs after 10 years of methane being converted to CO2 in the atmosphere - should NOT be attributed to livestock - because it represents CO2 that was just scrubbed from the atmosphere by the grass or feed crops the livestock ate. Exactly the same way that biofuels are considered "green".
The speaker quotes the figure of 28 as the 100 year contribution of CO2 -equivalent for methane from cows. This is too high, for the above reason. On a ten year scale, CH4 is about 85 times as potent as CO2. Over 100 years, that would be 8.5, not 28 - fully 2/3rds less. Which means that the entire livestock industry, which produces a huge range of products beyond meat, milk, and eggs, is operating within the natural carbon - methane cycle, while fossil fuels are not. IOW, even a partial reduction in fossil fuel burning means that any livestock methane emissions are meaningless - they will not accumulate in the atmosphere.