Meat Eaters Guide: Methodology - Environmental Working Group
Meat Eaters Guide: Methodology - Environmental Working Group
Meat Eaters Guide: Methodology - Environmental Working Group
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Meat</strong> <strong>Eaters</strong> <strong>Guide</strong>: <strong>Methodology</strong><br />
12<br />
trailer truck.<br />
• All food items are assumed to be produced and transported domestically, with the exception<br />
of lamb and salmon, which are assumed to be imported and transported via ship a distance<br />
equal to the average distance of the top two producing countries. Lamb production data is<br />
domestic; our calculations assume that 50% is imported by ship from New Zealand and Australia.<br />
• All food products are assumed to travel 2,253 km (1,500 miles) and by semi-trailer truck 161<br />
km (100 miles) by single-unit truck to final retail establishment. 16<br />
• For imported products (lamb, salmon, imported cheese), we estimate emissions for each item<br />
using the average distance (in nautical miles) from the top two exporting countries.<br />
• All transport modes are assumed to have 100 percent utilization (full use of the truck) and 100<br />
percent backhaul (use of the return trip for hauling other freight).<br />
Clearly, the actual distance traveled by different inputs will vary by region and production system. In<br />
some cases, animals are trucked much farther than 300 km from where they are born to where they<br />
are raised in confinement. The distance that food travels to its final destination will also vary. For the<br />
purposes of this analysis, we selected a set of consistent assumptions based on general averages. In<br />
order to provide a sense of the differential GHG impact of eating locally or regionally, our model calculated<br />
GHGs of food that was transported either 2,253 km or 161 km (100 miles). Surprisingly, the actual<br />
GHG differential between 2,253 km and 161 km is quite small. In the case of beef, eating a kilogram<br />
of beef that travelled 161 versus 2,253 km only changes the GHG footprint by 0.28 kg CO 2 e per<br />
kg of beef consumed – less than 1 percent of beef’s total emissions. The difference is much greater in<br />
vegetables, where the overall footprint is much smaller. Buying locally can reduce the overall footprint<br />
by as much as 20 percent for broccoli and 25 percent for tomatoes; local purchasing reduces meat’s<br />
carbon footprint by just 1-3 percent. We also considered the GHGs associated with shipping products<br />
such as cheese and lamb (about 50 percent of lamb is imported). Shipping adds 0.18 kg CO 2 e per kg<br />
beef, but just 0.06 kg CO 2 e per kg of cheese.<br />
c. Fertilizer and Pesticide Production<br />
Fertilizer production is an energy-intensive process that relies primarily on natural gas. Pesticide<br />
production is also energy intensive, relying primarily on the use of crude petroleum oils and/or natural<br />
gas. CO 2 is generated from the energy used in production and in treating the resulting wastewater.<br />
CleanMetrics based emission factors for fertilizer production on International Fertilizer Association<br />
(IFA) publications. 17 Pesticide data were derived from the Encyclopedia of Pest Management.Water/<br />
wastewater treatment data are from American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and<br />
IPCC. Emissions associated with transportation of fertilizers and pesticides to the agricultural sites<br />
are based on an assumption of 1,600 km by semi-trailer truck and 200 km by single-unit truck. 18<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Working</strong> <strong>Group</strong> <strong>Meat</strong> <strong>Eaters</strong> <strong>Guide</strong>: <strong>Methodology</strong> 2011