Livestock, methane, and climate change: The politics of global assessments.

IF 9.4 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-05-27 DOI:10.1002/wcc.790
Ian Scoones
{"title":"Livestock, methane, and climate change: The politics of global assessments.","authors":"Ian Scoones","doi":"10.1002/wcc.790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The relationship between livestock production and climate change is the subject of hot debate, with arguments for major shifts in diets and a reduction in livestock production. This Perspective examines how global assessments of livestock-derived methane emissions are framed, identifying assumptions and data gaps that influence standard life-cycle analysis approaches. These include inadequate data due to a focus on industrial not extensive systems; errors arising due to inappropriate emission factors being applied; questions of how global warming potentials are derived for different greenhouse gases and debates about what baselines are appropriate. The article argues for a holistic systems approach that takes account of diverse livestock systems-both intensive and extensive-including both positive and negative impacts. In particular, the potential benefits of extensive livestock systems are highlighted, including supporting livelihoods, providing high-quality nutrition, enhancing biodiversity, protecting landscapes, and sequestering carbon. By failing to differentiate between livestock systems, global assessments may mislead. Inappropriate measurement, verification and reporting processes linked to global climate change policy may in turn result in interventions that can undermine the livelihoods of extensive livestock-keepers in marginal areas, including mobile pastoralists. In the politics of global assessments, certain interests promote framings of the livestock-climate challenge in favour of contained, intensive systems, and the conversion of extensive rangelands into conservation investments. Emerging from a narrow, aggregated scientific framing, global assessments therefore can have political consequences. A more disaggregated, nuanced approach is required if the future of food and climate change is to be effectively addressed. This article is categorized under:Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Assessing Climate Change in the Context of Other IssuesClimate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development.</p>","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":"14 1","pages":"e790"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10078214/pdf/","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.790","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

The relationship between livestock production and climate change is the subject of hot debate, with arguments for major shifts in diets and a reduction in livestock production. This Perspective examines how global assessments of livestock-derived methane emissions are framed, identifying assumptions and data gaps that influence standard life-cycle analysis approaches. These include inadequate data due to a focus on industrial not extensive systems; errors arising due to inappropriate emission factors being applied; questions of how global warming potentials are derived for different greenhouse gases and debates about what baselines are appropriate. The article argues for a holistic systems approach that takes account of diverse livestock systems-both intensive and extensive-including both positive and negative impacts. In particular, the potential benefits of extensive livestock systems are highlighted, including supporting livelihoods, providing high-quality nutrition, enhancing biodiversity, protecting landscapes, and sequestering carbon. By failing to differentiate between livestock systems, global assessments may mislead. Inappropriate measurement, verification and reporting processes linked to global climate change policy may in turn result in interventions that can undermine the livelihoods of extensive livestock-keepers in marginal areas, including mobile pastoralists. In the politics of global assessments, certain interests promote framings of the livestock-climate challenge in favour of contained, intensive systems, and the conversion of extensive rangelands into conservation investments. Emerging from a narrow, aggregated scientific framing, global assessments therefore can have political consequences. A more disaggregated, nuanced approach is required if the future of food and climate change is to be effectively addressed. This article is categorized under:Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Assessing Climate Change in the Context of Other IssuesClimate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
畜牧业、甲烷和气候变化:全球评估的政治。
畜牧业生产与气候变化之间的关系是激烈辩论的主题,有人主张大幅改变饮食和减少畜牧业生产。该视角考察了牲畜甲烷排放的全球评估是如何制定的,确定了影响标准生命周期分析方法的假设和数据差距。其中包括由于关注工业而非广泛的系统而导致的数据不足;由于采用不适当的排放系数而产生的误差;关于不同温室气体的全球变暖潜能是如何得出的问题,以及关于什么样的基线是合适的争论。这篇文章主张采用一种全面的系统方法,考虑到密集和广泛的不同畜牧系统,包括积极和消极的影响。特别是,强调了广泛的畜牧系统的潜在好处,包括支持生计、提供高质量营养、增强生物多样性、保护景观和封存碳。由于未能区分畜牧系统,全球评估可能会产生误导。与全球气候变化政策相关的不适当的测量、核查和报告程序可能反过来导致干预措施,破坏边缘地区大量牲畜饲养者的生计,包括流动牧民。在全球评估的政治中,某些利益集团推动了畜牧业气候挑战的框架,支持封闭、集约的系统,并将广泛的牧场转化为保护投资。因此,全球评估从狭隘的、综合的科学框架中产生,可能会产生政治后果。如果要有效地解决粮食和气候变化的未来问题,就需要采取更加分类、细致入微的方法。本文分类为:气候变化综合评估>其他问题背景下的气候变化评估气候与发展>社会正义与发展政治。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES-
CiteScore
20.00
自引率
2.20%
发文量
58
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: WIREs Climate Change serves as a distinctive platform for delving into current and emerging knowledge across various disciplines contributing to the understanding of climate change. This includes environmental history, humanities, physical and life sciences, social sciences, engineering, and economics. Developed in association with the Royal Meteorological Society and the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) in the UK, this publication acts as an encyclopedic reference for climate change scholarship and research, offering a forum to explore diverse perspectives on how climate change is comprehended, analyzed, and contested globally.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A “greenhouse gas balance” for aviation in line with the Paris Agreement Distributive justice and the global emissions budget Histories of habitability from the oikoumene to the Anthropocene Multilevel intergroup conflict at the core of climate (in)justice: Psychological challenges and ways forward
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1