4.7 Article

Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 491-503

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.006

关键词

Livestock; Greenhouse gas emissions; Opportunity cost; Land use; Food security; Needs

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/G013446/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [GR/T29123/01, EP/G013446/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that livestock account for a significant proportion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and global consumption of livestock products is growing rapidly. This paper reviews the life cycle analysis (LCA) approach to quantifying these emissions and argues that, given the dynamic complexity of our food system, it offers a limited understanding of livestock's GHG impacts. It is argued that LCA's conclusions need rather to be considered within a broader conceptual framework that incorporates three key additional perspectives. The first is an understanding of the indirect second order effects of livestock production on land use change and associated CO(2) emissions. The second compares the opportunity cost of using land and resources to rear animals with their use for other food or non-food purposes. The third perspective is need-the paper considers how far people need livestock products at all. These perspectives are used as lenses through which to explore both the impacts of livestock production and the mitigation approaches that are being proposed. The discussion is then broadened to consider whether it is possible to substantially reduce livestock emissions through technological measures alone, or whether reductions in livestock consumption will additionally be required. The paper argues for policy strategies that explicitly combine GHG mitigation with measures to improve food security and concludes with suggestions for further research. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据