35

Does it take 16 kg of CO2e to make two hamburgers? It seems an exaggeration

It’s also worth putting the amount of carbon involved in having a Christmas tree in context. The Carbon Trust estimates that a 2m-tall (6.6ft) Christmas tree burnt after use emits only 3.5kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) – roughly 0.2% of the emissions from a return flight from London to New York. A tree of the same size that ends up in landfill has a carbon footprint of 16kg of CO2e – equivalent to 1% of that return flight, or roughly two hamburgers.

(from The overlooked benefits of real Christmas trees)

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
Sergey Zolotarev
  • 1,073
  • 7
  • 16
  • 3
    The title might be better phrased as *"Does it release 16 kg of CO2 equivalent..."*, as it does not *take* the gases. – jpa Dec 17 '22 at 07:14
  • How does burning a Christmas tree after use emit less CO2 equivalent than burying it in a landfill? It is off-gassing a lot of methane in the landfill??? – Michael Dec 18 '22 at 18:49
  • "It seems an exaggeration" only if you haven't the faintest idea what sort of orders of magnitude are involved in CO2e emissions. Beef (from beef herds) produces 60 kg CO2e per kg ([OWID](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage.png)). Here the BBC isn't clear about what it means by a "hamburger", but even if we're just talking about two 125g patties, that's 15 kg CO2e. (I think the implicit and unspoken assumption made by most is that 1 kg of beef should surely produce <1 kg of CO2e, but that's not the case.) –  Dec 22 '22 at 07:14
  • Aren't Christmas trees, or any plant, carbon neutral? While growing a plant absorbs CO2. When a plant dies and rots, gets eaten, or is burned, it releases CO2. Wouldn't it be the same amount? – Pete Dec 24 '22 at 23:46

1 Answers1

43

Does it take 16 kg of CO2e to make two hamburgers? It seems an exaggeration.

That's about right. For example, per Got Beef? Here’s What Your Hamburger Is Doing To The Climate, it takes 60 kilograms of CO2 equivalent to produce one kilogram of beef. Other sites yield similar ratios. That means producing two small hamburgers (1/4 lb each) require 30 pounds of carbon dioxide (or its equivalent), or 13.6 kg. And that's for two small burgers. Many restaurants in the US sell half pound burgers, or larger.

One problem is that cows belch and fart (sorry to be crude). Those belches and farts contain methane gas. Methane is much more harmful with regard to CO2 equivalents than is CO2 itself. In addition to this key problem, cattle are fed with CO2 intensive grains near the end of their lives so as to dramatically increase their mass.

While I do enjoy a nice burger, a nice brisket, or a nice steak meal on occasion, I have tried to reduce this craving. Eating beef is incredibly bad with regard to global warming.

RockPaperLz- Mask it or Casket
  • 561
  • 5
  • 18
David Hammen
  • 14,500
  • 9
  • 57
  • 51
  • Instead, eat some lamb or mutton to address that craving for red meat. – David Hammen Dec 15 '22 at 21:06
  • Note that the argument is that producing the meat for a hamburger *emits* 16kg of CO2 - not that 16kg of CO2 are used. Consequently, the CO2 from the cattle feed shouldn't be (and likely isn't) factored in, since that CO2 has previously been removed from the atmosphere by growing the grain - so the grain itself is carbon-neutral. – Dreamer Dec 16 '22 at 10:30
  • 7
    @Dreamer It's CO2 equivalents, not CO2 itself. The methane in cattle belches and farts has a huge multiplier with regard to CO2 equivalents. Also note that growing and transporting livestock feed is not carbon neutral. A lot of non-neutral machinery is involved, as is a lot of non-neutral fertilizer. – David Hammen Dec 16 '22 at 10:53
  • What's the metrics look like on Buffalo meat? Do they have the same issues as cow? – Onyz Dec 16 '22 at 12:57
  • 5
    @Onyz the problem is with all ruminant species, which, BTW, include sheep. – Didier L Dec 16 '22 at 13:34
  • 7
    @DavidHammen sheep and goats are also ruminants, so not much better - that digestive system produces a lot of methane. So are deer, but wild venison can be better as the deer would exist whether or not it got eaten. The best non-ruminant red-meat experience is probably duck, pigeon or pheasant - rabbit has a good flavour but not the colour/texture. (The tiny bit of meat I eat isn't from ruminants for this reason) – Chris H Dec 16 '22 at 13:47
  • 7
    Note that comparing the global warming potential of different gases depends on the timescale, as some break down quicker than others. Methane (which comes out of both ends of a cow) is [at least 27× (EPA.gov)](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials) as bad as CO₂, with other estimates going as high as 84×. – Chris H Dec 16 '22 at 13:52
  • 5
    Not to mention the deforestation involved in producing more grazing land for cattle. I've heard of iguana meat being suggested as a beef substitute because rather than needing to cut down rainforests for pastures, iguanas *live* in rainforests. And the meat is apparently very similar in taste/texture. – Darrel Hoffman Dec 16 '22 at 14:14
  • 2
    @DidierL Just because they're all ruminants does not mean they're equally harmful. Bison meat has about half of the CO2e of meat from cattle, and even less for lamb and mutton. Apparently it's the fattening up of cattle using alfalfa pellets that is a key culprit. Grass-fed beef is less harmful to the environment (but also less tasty and tougher) than is beef from cattle fattened up at a feed lot. – David Hammen Dec 16 '22 at 14:20
  • 2
    @DavidHammen I didn’t say equal, I said they also have the problem. The actual values probably depend on the way of measuring, but it will always be way above poultry for example. – Didier L Dec 16 '22 at 14:56
  • 1
    The timescales for the methane portion are important, in about 10 years it will be gone. That has led to an equilibrium. If we increase the amount of livestock, the contribution from methane will increase, but maintain at that new level unless the amount of livestock changes again. When we burn fossil fuels that were buried in the ground for millions of years, the increase in CO2 lasts for centuries. That is like farming cows that live (and belch and fart) for hundreds of years. Ending their life cycle by eating them stops their production of methane. – Jason Goemaat Dec 16 '22 at 16:48
  • @DavidHammen it's tricky, and not necessarily clear-cut: grass-fed also requires more grass land, which can be taken on forest space. And grass-fed beef is often raised for a longer period of time (which is good for the well-being of the animal, but unfortunately means more time to emit methane) – njzk2 Dec 16 '22 at 18:44
  • @JasonGoemaat methane degrades into CO₂ and water, so there is no equilibrium – Didier L Dec 16 '22 at 19:41
  • 1
    @Didier And that CO2 and water go into plants that the livestock eat and goes back into methane. – Jason Goemaat Dec 16 '22 at 20:26
  • There's nothing wrong with *eating* beef. It's the husbandry *industry* that's the problem. *The way we practice husbandry* is incredibly bad with regard to global warming. – Mazura Dec 17 '22 at 02:07
  • @Mazura never heared of ethics? – FloPinguin Dec 17 '22 at 20:20
  • 1
    @FloPinguin Some people do not have an ethical / moral problem with eating beef, or for that matter, any other kind of meat (other than human meat, of course). Our teeth and digestive system show that we are much closer to being carnivores than herbivores. Mice might think it's unethical for cats to kill and eat them, but cats have a different perspective. That said, we should practice as much humanity as possible while raising and later killing the animals that we do eat. – David Hammen Dec 17 '22 at 20:38
  • we just need some kind of methane capture system at both ends of the cow... or perhaps flaring... – Michael Dec 18 '22 at 18:52
  • @DavidHammen Most meat comes from animal torturing, or in other words, factory farming (in germany 98% for example). "as much humanity as possible" lol – FloPinguin Dec 29 '22 at 12:52