Received: 5 January 2022 Revised: 7 April 2022 Accepted: 26 April 2022

DOI: 10.1002/wcc.790

PERSPECTIVE

Livestock, methane, and climate change:

The politics of global assessments

Ian Scoones

PASTRES Programme, Institute of

Development Studies, University of
Abstract
Sussex, Brighton, UK 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
Correspondence
Ian Scoones, PASTRES Programme, production. This Perspective examines how global assessments of livestock-derived
Institute of Development Studies, methane emissions are framed, identifying assumptions and data gaps that influ-
University of Sussex,
ence standard life-cycle analysis approaches. These include inadequate data due to
Brighton BN1 9RE, UK.
Email: i.scoones@ids.ac.uk a focus on industrial not extensive systems; errors arising due to inappropriate
emission factors being applied; questions of how global warming potentials are
Funding information
H2020 European Research Council,
derived for different greenhouse gases and debates about what baselines are appro-
Grant/Award Number: 740342 priate. The article argues for a holistic systems approach that takes account of
diverse livestock systems—both intensive and extensive—including both positive

Edited by: Lars Otto Naess, Domain

and negative impacts. In particular, the potential benefits of extensive livestock sys-
Editor, and Mike Hulme, Editor-in-Chief tems 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 mis-
lead. Inappropriate measurement, verification and reporting processes linked to
global climate change policy may in turn result in interventions that can under-
mine 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 sys-
tems, and the conversion of extensive rangelands into conservation investments.
Emerging from a narrow, aggregated scientific framing, global assessments there-
fore 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 Issues
• Climate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development

KEYWORDS
climate, conservation, global assessment, life-cycle analysis, livestock, methane, politics

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Author. WIREs Climate Change published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

WIREs Clim Change. 2023;14:e790. wires.wiley.com/climatechange 1 of 8

https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.790
 17577799, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.790 by Cochrane Thailand, Wiley Online Library on [22/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 of 8 SCOONES

1 | INTRODUCTION

The relationship between livestock production and greenhouse gas emissions is the subject of multiple global
assessments and much public and policy commentary. Too often, this results in misunderstandings, rooted in a poor
comprehension of both the impacts and benefits of different systems of livestock production, despite plentiful, compre-
hensive, evidence-based reviews (e.g., Alibés et al., 2020; Herrero et al., 2016, 2009; Paul et al., 2020; Rivera-Ferre
et al., 2016). A generalized narrative frequently prevails, which argues for major shifts in diets to reduce meat and milk
consumption and a reduction in livestock production worldwide, releasing land for conservation uses and rewilding.
This article challenges this now widely held narrative, arguing for a more differentiated perspective, based on a more
sophisticated approach to global assessments.
This is important since methane—the greenhouse gas emitted by ruminant livestock—has become the centre of
recent climate mitigation debates (Reisinger et al., 2021). As a powerful “climate-forcing” gas, methane has major
effects on global warming, even though its lifetime in the atmosphere is short relative to carbon dioxide. Livestock pro-
duction, together with gas pipelines, shale fracking, waste dumps and wet rice agriculture, is a significant emitter of
methane.1 Reducing methane therefore is seen as a “quick win” for climate mitigation due to its significant influence
on warming in the short term, and the Global Methane Pledge that commits to reducing methane by 30% by 2030 has
over 100 countries as signatories.2
Efforts to reduce methane emissions will have major implications for livestock production globally, as systems of
greenhouse gas measurement, verification, and climate emissions reporting are established. But which livestock,
where? What are the uncertainties within the global scientific assessments central to framing mitigation policies? What
assumptions and biases may distort, with what consequences? These are just some of the questions addressed in this
article, which is based on the recent report, Are Livestock Always Bad for the Planet? Rethinking the Protein Transition
and Climate Change Debate (Houzer & Scoones, 2021, https://pastres.org/livestock-report/).

2 | DIV ERS E LI VES T OCK , D I FF E R E NT E M I SSI O NS

The notion of the “livestock sector” presented in many global assessment reports is largely meaningless.3 There are
hugely different livestock production systems in different parts of the world: from contained, industrial factory farming
to extensive grazing on open rangelands. Along a long continuum, there are very different emission dynamics and so
very different framings of and solutions to the methane mitigation challenge.
Extensive livestock producers make use of rangelands that cover over half the world's land surface, with many mil-
lions of producers tending everything from cattle and camels to goats and sheep to yaks, reindeer and llamas (ILRI
et al., 2021). They are frequently marginalized economically and politically and are often seen as “backward” and
“destructive” due to their mobile lifestyles. Yet extensive livestock producers, including pastoralists, make use of envi-
ronments where conventional agriculture is impossible. They contribute to enhancing biodiversity, protecting ecosys-
tem services, preserving cultures and landscapes and contributing high-density protein and other nutrients to diets,
often to those who need them most (Manzano et al., 2021). For obvious reasons, they are very different to large, indus-
trial livestock production systems.
Lumping all livestock systems together in any analysis therefore makes little sense. There are different costs and
benefits, different patterns of emissions, and different routes to mitigation. Yet, the way the science is framed in global
assessments tends to aggregate and simplify. In order to see how these often-inadvertent biases arise, we have to look at
the science behind global assessments and how it is constructed. The choices of models, the units of assessment, the
baselines used, and the styles of analysis all affect the results. The science is not simply “neutral,” but inevitably
emerges through a social and political process where choices of framings and analysis strategies are made.

3 | L I V E S T O C K A N D CL I M A T E C H A N G E : BI A S E S AN D A S S U M P T I O N S

The central tool in global assessments of livestock-related climate impact is life-cycle analysis. Such analyses assess all
the inputs and outputs in a production system—sometimes stretching as far as transport, retail, and consumption—and
so come up with a measure of emissions in relation to particular products. Such measures can then be aggregated and
 17577799, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.790 by Cochrane Thailand, Wiley Online Library on [22/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SCOONES 3 of 8

extrapolated across production units and geographies to derive an aggregate figure—the global contribution of the
“sector” to total emissions.
In the case of livestock, a number of well-known studies from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion have carried out such assessments, starting with the much-debated Livestock's Long Shadow (Steinfeld et al., 2006;
see also Glatzle, 2014), and more recently the report, Tackling Climate Change through Livestock (Gerber et al., 2013).
The latter came up with the now much-repeated “iconic fact” that 14.5% of total anthropogenic greenhouse emissions
come from livestock.4
The aggregate emissions figures are presented in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents, meaning that all greenhouse
gases, including methane, must be presented together. However, given the contrasting ways that gases behave in the
atmosphere, they have very different “global warming potentials.” Much uncertainty exists around how to treat meth-
ane, for example, which has high warming potential in the short-term, but decays rapidly. Some suggest that the effects
of methane are overestimated using standard measures, and alternatives for assessing “global warming potential” have
been proposed (Allen et al. 2016; Del Prado et al., 2021). Without going into the technical details, the point is that there
is much uncertainty around the seemingly authoritative facts and figures about livestock's methane emissions.
Such uncertainties are compounded when the underlying emissions data on which they are based are examined.
Inevitably, global assessments are estimates, but where does the data come from? In large part, livestock emissions data
derive from respiratory chamber experiments on large, well-bred animals, mostly in North America and Europe. Such
experiments are used to derive emissions factors in national estimates reported to the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
mate Change (IPCC) and which subsequently are reflected in proposals for “Nationally Determined Commitments” for
mitigation. However, a comprehensive review of life-cycle assessments of food production systems highlighted that only
0.4% of these were from Africa (Clark & Tilman, 2017). When empirical studies are undertaken on local animals, very
different results emerge to the standard emission estimates. In part, this is because such animals are smaller, but also
because they are physiologically adapted and feed selectively on natural range under particular feeding regimes. As a
result, such animals produce far fewer emissions than usually assumed in standard models (Goopy et al., 2021;
ILRI, 2018; Ndung'u et al., 2019). While estimated emissions factors may be necessary while improved data emerges
from such local studies, much caution must be applied to the results, since life-cycle analyses may be substantially off
the mark due to this chain of compounding uncertainties.
Yet, global assessments that feed into climate policy frequently rely on extrapolations from this type of life-cycle
analysis. A widely quoted example was published in Science and used information from an impressive 38,700 produc-
tion units and 1600 processors as its data source (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Extrapolating to a global level, the study
claimed that reducing consumption of animal-source foods and excluding animal production across 3.1 billion hectares
(equivalent to a 19% reduction in arable land) would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 49% (2018: 991). Without
attending to the multiple qualifications and assumptions laid out in the Additional Materials, the media headlines that
ensued condemned livestock production and urged major changes in diets, a message reinforced by the much-debated
EAT Lancet report (Willett et al., 2019). However, the Science study largely missed out on extensive systems, including
as it did only “commercially viable” case studies. It relied on published data, which was mostly from industrial produc-
tion in North America, Europe and some parts of Latin America and coastal China, and so created a distorted view,
now replicated across public and policy debates.
Such biases in the data are in turn exacerbated by a narrow focus on emissions efficiencies per animal or per unit of
product, without assessing the system as a whole, including the potential for sequestration. We still know very little
about the carbon-nitrogen dynamics in rangeland systems in different parts of the world (Garnett et al., 2017), but
grasslands are a huge global store of carbon, notably in roots and soils (Dass et al., 2018); part of dynamic “open ecosys-
tems” that have co-evolved with natural herbivory, both domestic and wild, for millennia (Bond, 2019). Depending on
the state of such ecosystems, grazing animals can add to such stocks (Conant et al., 2017; McSherry & Ritchie, 2013).
This is especially the case if manure is deposited and incorporated across wide areas, as with mobile systems. More
comprehensive life-cycle assessments of mobile, extensive livestock production shows how, if such sequestration poten-
tials are accounted for, then such systems can be in carbon balance, even being net positive under some conditions.5
All ruminants produce methane and so have impacts on global warming, but in global assessments for climate
change mitigation we are interested in those that are “additional.” This means thinking about what the appropriate
baseline is (Manzano & White, 2019). Emissions from industrial systems are clearly additional to a natural baseline.
Animal-derived emissions are added to by those from feed imports, concentrated waste deposition and infrastructure
investments. However, an extensive system on an open rangeland may not in fact be additional to a natural baseline,
where the same environment was previously occupied by other grazing herbivores. Assessments of emissions from wild
 17577799, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.790 by Cochrane Thailand, Wiley Online Library on [22/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 of 8 SCOONES

animals, as well as termites, show how baseline emissions may be high; perhaps as high as the extensive livestock sys-
tems that replace them (Hristov, 2012). Differentiating between production systems in relation to their baselines and
calculations of “additionality” is thus vitally important.
All this points to the need for a “systems” approach to life-cycle assessments, avoiding the narrow focus on emissions
per animal or unit of product as is conventionally applied. Instead, a more holistic assessment should encompass both
emission impacts—including from production, inputs, waste, infrastructure, transport, and so on—and environmental
benefits—including carbon/nitrogen sequestration, but also improvements in biodiversity, ecosystem services, landscape
values, and so on. Such estimates in turn must take account of the actual animals involved, without imposing artificial
emission factor estimates and, furthermore, assessments must be in relation to a realistic baseline, depending on what
livestock are replacing. In turn, a wider social and economic assessment should evaluate the impacts of different liveli-
hood options, examining, for example, how different systems provide both affordable and high-quality animal products.
Such analyses would then encompass the trade-offs between cheap products versus high-quality nutrition, and the meet-
ing of particular dietary needs, especially of those who are nutritionally vulnerable, including younger people and preg-
nant or nursing women (e.g., Adesogan et al., 2020; Beal et al., 2021; Iannotti et al., 2021; Moughan, 2021).
There are of course many intersecting uncertainties and multiple trade-offs inherent in such a systems analysis, but
a mature, deliberative discussion of climate change mitigation options and the future of food requires engaging with
uncertainties and addressing trade-offs. Rushing to premature and distorting conclusions with the search for iconic,
media-friendly figures and associated targets can be highly damaging.

4 | S CIENC E AND GLOBAL ASSES SMENTS: F RAM ING THE DEBATE

How assessments are framed, what models are deployed, which data are used, and what baselines are applied therefore
make a big difference. There is an important political economy in “which data count” in global assessments, and so in
climate change policymaking. Despite the assured proclamations, amplified in the media and those campaigning for
certain “solutions,” there are multiple, compounding uncertainties that impinge on any assessment. This of course is
not an argument for doing nothing. But it is an argument for being more circumspect about generalized recommenda-
tions and being more careful in the analysis before leaping to conclusions that all livestock are bad for the planet every-
where, or that we must all change our diet.
Simple policy narratives run well in media headlines. For example, the Science paper mentioned earlier (Poore &
Nemecek, 2018) has been repeatedly used, with the UK Guardian newspaper running the headline “avoiding meat and
dairy is the single biggest way to reduce your impact on earth.”6 In the same way, the well-respected data visualization
site, Our World in Data, makes use of this same analysis in many of its curated graphs, arguing for shifts in diet and
changing livestock systems.7 Looking for a clear campaign position, messages may essentialize and simplify, but may
also distort with damaging consequences. The oft-repeated argument that cows are just as bad as cars in terms of cli-
mate impacts misses many important nuances; not least that methane and carbon dioxide have very different impacts
in the atmosphere, and the fact that emissions figures for livestock include both direct and indirect emissions (across
the whole life cycle), while those for transport cover only direct emissions.8
The IPCC's AR6 Working Group 1 report focused a lot on methane and offered some nuanced, while sobering,
assessment.9 However, most journalists will not wade through the dense, scientific text and will revert to the shorter
summaries. Media headlines and campaign positions inevitably simplify. This would not matter if there were not mate-
rial consequences. While most journalists and campaigners in environmental organizations will argue that their focus
is on industrialized meat and dairy production, where most of the damage occurs, this is not always clear. The conse-
quences of having only one form of aggregate assessment or a singular figure is that, in the global mechanisms designed
to address climate change, a differentiated perspective is lost. Standardized measures are applied to come up with
Nationally Determined Commitments presented as part of mitigation plans and so become part-and-parcel of agreed
verification and reporting systems.
Poor quality data, lack of analysis capacity and inappropriate assessment models, inadequately applied, may end up
with poor diagnoses that fail to distinguish between different livestock production systems. The ability to respond to
the huge requirements of national climate impact assessment and reporting on mitigation options under UNFCCC
(UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) procedures is especially challenging for under-resourced officials in
developing country environment ministries. It is of course much easier to pluck a number from an existing analysis and
plug it into a very rough estimate for national emissions than to try and work it out from scratch, with virtually non-
 17577799, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.790 by Cochrane Thailand, Wiley Online Library on [22/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SCOONES 5 of 8

existent, locally-grounded data. As a result, errors and assumptions are accumulated and multiplied, resulting in persis-
tent biases in aggregate global assessments of the climate impacts of livestock and distortions in debates about the
future of food.

5 | POLITICS AND INTERESTS

Global assessment processes are therefore inevitably political, favouring some interests over others. This may not be the
result of any deliberate conspiracy, but the consequence of the processes of aggregation, simplification and the limits in
capacity for data collection and analysis.
The systematic biases against extensive livestock producers, most notably pastoralists, are evident however. This has very
direct consequences, with major injustices arising as fingers of blame are pointed inappropriately (García-Dory et al., 2021).
Aggregation and lack of differentiation may also get others off the hook. Industrial meat and dairy production results in
major negative environmental impacts; not only in terms of high levels of methane emissions, but also in terms of fossil fuel
consumption, feed imports, water pollution, and the costs of transport and infrastructure (Weis, 2013).10
Yet, advocates of industrialized, contained livestock production will consistently point to the high per animal or unit
of product emissions from animals grazed extensively on rough forage, and the potential for mitigating this through
intensification, through feed additives, vaccines, or other technological measures (cf. Beauchemin et al., 2020). This
argument is presented in terms of improving “efficiency” and “modernizing” production; doing away with what are
seen as wasteful and inefficient extensive systems. As we have seen this is a very selective view, failing to look at the full
range of both impacts and benefits as required by a more holistic, systems view. But it nevertheless serves certain corpo-
rate farming interests that make profits from “big meat and dairy,” and feeds into a narrative of technological moderni-
zation with a narrow view of efficiency at its core (Ajl & Wallace, 2021).
What is “modern” or “efficient” depends on your perspective of course. Many have made the case that in making
use of highly variable, low-productivity rangelands and converting grassland into high-quality protein and other nutri-
ents, mobile pastoralists—cast as “backward” by industrial system advocates—are actually highly modern and efficient
(Krätli, 2015). Arguments that project extensive livestock producers as “climate villains” therefore are political posi-
tions, framed in terms of supposedly technical arguments, ones that of course are never neutral but come with many
cultural, economic, and social assumptions.
Corporate backers of intensive livestock production have some unexpected allies, including those who argue for the
reduction in extensive livestock to create space for biodiversity conservation. Adopting similar rhetoric about the ineffi-
ciency and destructiveness of extensive livestock production, some argue for protecting half the earth for conservation
and biodiversity protection (without people and their domestic animals) and reserving the other half for more intensive
use, including for food (Wilson, 2016).11 Those offering often over-hyped promises of industrially-manufactured “cul-
tured meats” and plant-based “alternative proteins” (Sexton et al., 2019) frequently adopt a similar narrative, aiming to
release land from extensive use—for example for “rewilding”—while intensifying food production elsewhere
(Dinerstein et al., 2020; Folberth et al., 2020). Such views are promulgated despite evidence that certain types of careful
grazing can enhance biodiversity and reduce the risks of wildfires and other catastrophic, climate-damaging losses. As a
result, such analyses usually proceed without a full evaluation of the costs of producing protein through industrial
intensification, whether from animals, plants, or cultured alternatives (Houzer & Scoones, 2021; Manzano et al., 2021).
An unlikely coalition of scientists, policy-makers, environmental campaigners, journalists, diet-change activists, and
those backing industrial production of protein has emerged, focused on technological solutions to climate mitigation.
Inadequate data and inappropriate analysis supports such positions, while condemning and vilifying extensive livestock
production. Yet, due to a lack of voice and influence in global assessments, compounded by multiple scientific uncer-
tainties, inappropriate assumptions, and data gaps, injustices arise for extensive livestock producers, particularly pasto-
ralists. This in turn undermines effective global debate on the future of food and climate change.

6 | C ON C L U S I ON

What then is the way forward that allows for more balanced global assessments of livestock's contributions to emissions
and so a more informed debate that challenges the misleading assumptions and redresses the political inequalities in
current discourse?
 17577799, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.790 by Cochrane Thailand, Wiley Online Library on [22/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 of 8 SCOONES

• First, there is a need for differentiation between production systems. It is the material conditions of production—and
so the relations of capital, labour and environment—that matter, not the products. Meat and milk are very different
depending on how they are produced.

• Second, any assessment must adopt an integrated, holistic systems approach, looking at all inputs and outputs and
all costs and benefits for the whole system, while examining the uncertainties influencing conclusions and the trade-
offs that arise.

• Third, any analysis must interrogate the different framings at play, examining what is wanted from the system, tak-
ing account of the values, ethical positions, and material needs of different actors. Livestock systems look very differ-
ent from different standpoints.

• Fourth, much more dialogue and deliberation about what the priorities are is needed—between say the cost of food
and its impacts on the environment and wider livelihoods. This means surfacing the uncertainties and assumptions
at the centre of standard life-cycle analyses, and so questioning the modeling approaches, as well as the appropriate-
ness of the data for different settings.

• Fifth, more research must look at, for example, emission factors of different types of animals in different
agroecosystems and the patterns and potentials of carbon/nitrogen sequestration in open rangelands. In addition, dif-
ferent ways of conducting assessments are required, involving more diverse actors in engaged deliberation about
how model parameters are chosen and figures derived, interrogating the framing of both problems and solutions.

• Sixth, all this suggests much more attention to the political economy of assessments. Some outcomes may benefit
narrow interests and exclude others, imposing injustices in ways that undermine livelihoods, generate poverty, and
reduce the opportunities of the often already marginalized. Addressing whose knowledge counts, who wins and who
loses, and whose interests prevail is therefore vital.

In sum, creating space for the voice of pastoralists and other extensive livestock producers in global debates about the
future of food and the climate is essential. This will not only improve the science, but also the possibilities of addressing
the major challenges of our time in a more balanced and equitable way.

A C K N O WL E D G M E N T S
This article is based on the report, Are Livestock Always Bad for the Planet? (Houzer & Scoones, 2021, https://pastres.
org/livestock-report/), which was prepared as part of the PASTRES programme. Thanks to Ella Houzer, my co-author,
plus the 13 collaborating organizations that supported the preparation of the report, including providing detailed
reviews of its content.

FUNDING INFORMATION
The writing of this article was supported by a European Research Council Advanced Grant (740342).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author has declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed.

ORCID
Ian Scoones https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8547-4464

R EL A TE D WIR Es AR TI CL ES
Farmers fighting climate change—from victims to agents in subsistence livelihoods
Re-framing the climate change debate in the livestock sector: mitigation and adaptation options
 17577799, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.790 by Cochrane Thailand, Wiley Online Library on [22/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SCOONES 7 of 8

E N D N O T ES
1
There were over 650 mentions of “methane” in the full WG1 AR6 report, see https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
2
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_21_5766
3
The IPCC's AR6 WG3 report on mitigation does acknowledge the difference between intensive and extensive systems,
but also slips into generalizations about ‘livestock’ as a whole in discussing mitigation options; see https://www.ipcc.
ch/report/ar6/wg3/.
4
Including both direct and indirect emissions across the life cycle, amounting to 7.1 gigatons of CO2 equivalent per
year. Direct livestock emissions account for 5% of the total, according to the FAO estimate.
5
See for example studies in Sardinia, Italy (Arca et al., 2021), Amdo Tibet, China (Zhuang & Li, 2017) and the Ferlo,
Senegal (Assouma et al., 2019); see also Houzer and Scoones (2021, pp. 38–46).
6
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-
your-impact-on-earth;
7
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
8
See “Cars or Livestock: Which Contribute More to Climate Change?,” www.news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-
d2wf0and https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/fao-common-flawed-comparisons-greenhouse-gas-emissions-
livestock-transport/.
9
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
10
https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/MeatAtlas2021_final_web.pdf
11
For example, https://www.campaignfornature.org/Background or https://www.weforum.org/agenda/archive/trillion-
trees

R EF E RE N C E S
Adesogan, A. T., Havelaar, A. H., McKune, S. L., Eilittä, M., & Dahl, G. E. (2020). Animal source foods: Sustainability problem or malnutri-
tion and sustainability solution? Perspective matters. Global Food Security, 25, 100325.
Ajl, M., & Wallace, R. (2021, October 2021). Red vegans against green peasants. New Socialist. https://newsocialist.org.uk/red-vegans-against-
green-peasants/
Alibés, J., García, J., Herrera, P. M., Llorente, M., Majadas, J., Manzano, P., Moreno, G., Navarro, A., Orodea, M., & Oteros-Rozas, E. (2020).
Extensive farming and climate change: An in-depth approach. Fundaci!on Entretantos. Valladolid, Spain.
Allen, M., Fuglestvedt, J., Shine, K., Reisinger, A., Pierrehumbert, R. and Forster, P. (2016). New use of global warming potentials to compare
cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants. Nature Climate Change, 6, 773-776.
Arca, P., Vagnoni, E., Duce, P., & Franca, A. (2021). How does soil carbon sequestration affect greenhouse gas emissions from a sheep farm-
ing system? Results of a life cycle assessment case study. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 16, 1789. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2021.1789
Assouma, M. H., Hiernaux, P., Lecomte, P., Ickowicz, A., Bernoux, M., & Vayssières, J. (2019). Contrasted seasonal balances in a Sahelian
pastoral ecosystem result in a neutral annual carbon balance. Journal of Arid Environments, 162, 62–73.
Beal, T., White, J. M., Arsenault, J. E., Okronipa, H., Hinnouho, G.-M., Murira, Z., Torlesse, H., & Garg, A. (2021). Micronutrient gaps during the
complementary feeding period in South Asia: A comprehensive nutrient gap assessment. Nutrition Reviews, 79(Supplement 1), 26–34.
Beauchemin, K. A., Ungerfeld, E. M., Eckard, R. J., & Wang, M. (2020). Fifty years of research on rumen methanogenesis: Lessons learned
and future challenges for mitigation. Animal, 14(S1), s2–s16.
Bond, W. (2019). Open ecosystems: Ecology and evolution beyond the forest edge. Oxford University Press.
Clark, M., & Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input effi-
ciency, and food choice. Environmental Research Letters, 12(6), 064016.
Conant, R. T., Cerri, C. E. P., Osborne, B. B., & Paustian, K. (2017). Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: A new synthesis.
Ecological Applications, 27(2), 662–668.
Dass, P., Houlton, B. Z., Wang, Y., & Warlind, D. (2018). Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California. Environ-
mental Research Letters, 13(7), 074027.
Del Prado, A., Manzano, P., & Pardo, G. (2021). The role of the European small ruminant dairy sector in stabilising global temperatures:
Lessons from GWP* warming-equivalent emission metrics. Journal of Dairy Research, 88(1), 8–15.
Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A. R., Vynne, C., Lee, A. T. L., Pharand-Deschênes, F., França, M., Fernando, S., Birch, T., Burkart, K., & Asner, G. P.
(2020). A “global safety net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth's climate. Science Advances, 6(36), eabb2824.
Folberth, C., Khabarov, N., Balkovič, J., Skalskỳ, R., Visconti, P., Ciais, P., Janssens, I. A., Peñuelas, J., & Obersteiner, M. (2020). The global
cropland-sparing potential of high-yield farming. Nature Sustainability, 3(4), 281–289.
García-Dory, F., Houzer, E., & Scoones, I. (2021). Livestock and climate justice: Challenging mainstream policy narratives. IDS Bulletin.
https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2021.128
Garnett, T., Godde, C., Muller, A., Röös, E., Smith, P., De Boer, I. J. M., Zu Ermgassen, E., Herrero, M., Van Middelaar, C. E., & Schader, C.
(2017). Grazed and confused?: Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question – And
what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions. Food Climate Research Network.
 17577799, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.790 by Cochrane Thailand, Wiley Online Library on [22/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 of 8 SCOONES

Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., & Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling climate change
through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO).
Glatzle, A. (2014). Questioning key conclusions of FAO publications “Livestock's long shadow” (2006) appearing again in “tackling climate
change through livestock” (2013). Pastoralism, 4(1), 1–6.
Goopy, J. P., Ndung'u, P. W., Onyango, A., Kirui, P., & Butterbach-Bahl, K. (2021). Calculation of new enteric methane emission factors for
small ruminants in western Kenya highlights the heterogeneity of smallholder production systems. Animal Production Science, 61(6),
602–612.
Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlík, P., Thornton, P. K., Conant, R. T., Smith, P., Wirsenius, S., Hristov, A. N., Gerber, P., Gill, M., &
Butterbach-Bahl, K. (2016). Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Climate Change, 6(5), 452–461.
Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Gerber, P., & Reid, R. S. (2009). Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: Understanding the trade-offs. Cur-
rent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1(2), 111–120.
Houzer, E., & Scoones, I. (2021). Are livestock always bad for the planet? Rethinking the protein transition and climate change debate.
PASTRES. https://pastres.org/livestock-report/
Hristov, A. N. (2012). Historic, pre-European settlement, and present-day contribution of wild ruminants to enteric methane emissions in
the United States. Journal of Animal Science, 90(4), 1371–1375.
Iannotti, L., Tarawali, S. A., Baltenweck, I., Ericksen, P. J., Bett, B. K., Grace, D., Cartmill, M. K., Njoro, J., Rota, A., De Pee, S., &
Ramsing, B. (2021). Livestock-derived foods and sustainable healthy diets. UN Nutrition.
ILRI. (2018). ILRI corporate report 2016–2017. International Livestock Research Institute. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/92517
ILRI, with IUCN, FAO, WWF, UNEP and ILC. (2021). Rangelands Atlas. ILRI.
Krätli, S. (2015). Valuing variability: New perspectives on climate resilient dryland development. IIED.
Manzano, P., Burgas, D., Cadahía, L., Eronen, J. T., Fern!andez-Llamazares, Á., Bencherif, S., Holand, Ø., Seitsonen, O., Byambaa, B.,
Fortelius, M., & Fern!andez-Giménez, M. E. (2021). Toward a holistic understanding of pastoralism. One Earth, 4(5), 651–665.
Manzano, P., & White, S. (2019). Intensifying pastoralism may not reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Wildlife-dominated landscape scenarios
as a baseline in life-cycle analysis. Climate Research, 77, 91–97.
McSherry, M. E., & Ritchie, M. E. (2013). Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: A global review. Global Change Biology, 19(5), 1347–
1357.
Moughan, P. J. (2021). Population protein intakes and food sustainability indices: The metrics matter. Global Food Security, 29, 100548.
Ndung'u, P. W., Bebe, B. O., Ondiek, J. O., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Merbold, L., & Goopy, J. P. (2019). Improved region-specific emission factors
for enteric methane emissions from cattle in smallholder mixed crop: Livestock systems of Nandi County, Kenya. Animal Production Sci-
ence, 59(6), 1136–1146.
Paul, B. K., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Notenbaert, A., Nderi, A. N., & Ericksen, P. (2020). Sustainable livestock development in low-and middle-
income countries: Shedding light on evidence-based solutions. Environmental Research Letters, 16(1), 011001.
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992.
Reisinger, A., Clark, H., Cowie, A. L., Emmet-Booth, J., Gonzalez Fischer, C., Herrero, M., Howden, M., & Leahy, S. (2021). How necessary
and feasible are reductions of methane emissions from livestock to support stringent temperature goals? Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society A, 379(2210), 20200452.
Rivera-Ferre, M. G., L! opez-i-Gelats, F., Howden, M., Smith, P., Morton, J. F., & Herrero, M. (2016). Re-framing the climate change debate in
the livestock sector: Mitigation and adaptation options. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(6), 869–892.
Sexton, A. E., Garnett, T., & Lorimer, J. (2019). Framing the future of food: The contested promises of alternative proteins. Environment and
Planning E: Nature and Space, 2(1), 47–72.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T. D., Castel, V., Rosales, M.,. M.,. M. R., & Haan, C. d. (2006). Livestock's long shadow: Environmental
issues and options. FAO.
Weis, T. (2013). The ecological Hoofprint: The global burden of industrial livestock. Zed Books.
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M.,
Clark, M., Gordon, L. J., Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J. A., Vries, W. D., Sibanda, L. M., … Murray, C. J. L. (2019). Food in
the anthropocene: The EAT–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492.
Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half-earth: Our planet's fight for life. WW Norton & Company.
Zhuang, M. G., & Li, W. (2017). Greenhouse gas emission of pastoralism is lower than combined extensive/intensive livestock husbandry: A
case study on the Qinghai–Tibet plateau of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 514–522.

How to cite this article: Scoones, I. (2023). Livestock, methane, and climate change: The politics of global
assessments. WIREs Climate Change, 14(1), e790. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.790