4.6 Article

Emissions from Animal Agriculture-16.5% Is the New Minimum Figure

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 13, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13116276

Keywords

animal agriculture; climate change; emissions; epistemological bias; FAO; GLEAM; sociology of science; United Nations

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses how knowledge production in climate science is adopted by various stakeholders and the wider culture, even if it's no longer accurate. It highlights the need to update estimates of emissions from animal agriculture and criticizes the Food and Agricultural Organization's focus on maximizing production efficiency.
Knowledge production within the climate sciences is quickly taken up by multiple stakeholders, reproduced in scientific citation and the broader culture, even when it is no longer accurate. This article accomplishes two goals: firstly, it contributes to the clarification of the quantification of emissions from animal agriculture, and secondly, it considers why the dominant framing of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) on this subject focuses on maximizing production efficiency. Specifically, analysing the FAO's own work on this topic shows that the often-used FAO estimate that emissions from animal agriculture amount to 14.5% of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is now out of date. In returning to the FAO's own explanation of its data sources and its more recent analysis of emissions from animal agriculture, this article finds that the figure of minimum estimate should be updated to 16.5%. The tendency of the FAO to prioritize a technological approach focused on making animal production more eco-efficient is critically examined in light of many other evidence-based calls for reductions in animal consumption. An explanation for this FAO approach is offered in terms of a type of epistemological bias.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available