By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Eric Galatas for Colorado News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

In the 10,000 years since humans first developed animal agriculture, livestock farming has become central to modern society. Unfortunately, it's also become one of the biggest drivers of climate change and environmental destruction. Animal farms create a staggering amount of air, water and land pollution, and with the consequences of climate change worsening by the year, addressing the environmental impacts of livestock farming is more important than ever.

Global warming is an enormous part of climate change, but it's not the only part. The concept of climate change encompasses not only rising global temperatures, but all sorts of other changes to the natural composition of Earth and its atmosphere, such as water pollution and land degradation. Here are some of the ways livestock farming contributes to those changes.

But First, a Brief Summary of Greenhouse Gasses

One of the biggest ways livestock farming contributes to climate change is through the emission of greenhouse gasses, which trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and cause global temperatures to rise. Insofar as livestock is concerned, there are three greenhouse gasses in particular of note.

• Carbon dioxide (CO2): The "main" greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide comprises around 80 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 exists naturally in the atmosphere and regularly circulates from the Earth to the air as part of the carbon cycle; however, the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities releases additional CO2, throwing off that cycle and increasing global temperatures. CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.



• Methane (CH4): Methane only accounts for 11 percent of global greenhouse emissions, and unlike CO2, disappears after a relatively brief 12 years. However, it's much more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere: over a 100-year period, one pound of CH4 has 28 times the global warming potential as one pound of CO2.



• Nitrous oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide only makes up six percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and exists naturally on Earth as part of the nitrogen cycle. It remains in the atmosphere for about 121 years on average after it's emitted, and its global warming potential is a whopping 265 times greater than that of CO2 over a 100-year period.

Because there are multiple greenhouse gasses with different warming potentials, greenhouse emissions are commonly converted to and measured in CO2-equivalents, or CO2-eq.


In various ways and to varying degrees, livestock farming emits all of the aforementioned greenhouse gasses. Here's how.


How Livestock Farming Creates Methane Emissions


Livestock are a significant source of methane emissions, thanks to a natural biological process called enteric fermentation. Cows, sheep, goats and other ruminant livestock have microbes in their digestive systems that decompose and ferment the food they eat, and methane is a byproduct of this fermentation process.


That methane is released into the atmosphere when the animals burp or fart, and it's also contained in their urine and manure. One cow can produce up to 264 pounds of methane every year, and it's estimated that in total, enteric fermentation from ruminant livestock is responsible for 30 percent of global anthropogenic methane emissions.


How Livestock Farming Leads to Pollution from Manure


Farm animals produce around 450 million tons of manure every year, and figuring out what to do with it is a major challenge for livestock farmers. Some farms store manure in large piles, landfills or lagoons - known as "settlement ponds" - while others simply dump it onto cropland and use it as untreated fertilizer.


All of these management methods result in the release of methane and nitrous oxide, which manure also contains. When manure is stored in an environment with insufficient oxygen, as is often the case with landfills and lagoons, it undergoes a process known as anaerobic decay, and releases nitrous oxide and methane into the air as a result. In addition, structural failures or extreme weather events often cause the manure in settlement ponds to leak into nearby soil and waterways.


When manure is used as fertilizer, it releases nitrogen into the soil. That's the point of fertilizer, as plants need a certain amount of nitrogen to grow. But when farms use this type of fertilization as a disposal method for excess manure, they often over-apply it to the crops in question, which causes the soil to absorb more nitrogen than is necessary.


You might wonder why it matters if soil contains too much nitrogen. There are two intertwined reasons: nutrient runoff and soil erosion.


Nutrient Runoff


Nutrient runoff occurs when rain, wind or other environmental forces disrupt soil and carry it into nearby waterways. When that soil has been fertilized with untreated manure, it pollutes the water in question, both with nitrogen and other toxins that are common in manure, like phosphorus. Nitrogen and phosphorus both stimulate algae growth, and excessive algae growth in a body of water leads to harmful algal blooms.


As their name implies, harmful algal blooms have a host of damaging environmental consequences. They release toxins that kill aquatic life and poison the drinking water, which can cause serious illness and even death in humans. Algal blooms reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, which aquatic life relies on, and prevent light from penetrating the water's surface, thus choking the life out of coral reefs and other aquatic plants that are crucial to Earth's ecosystems.


Soil Erosion


Nutrient runoff is exacerbated by another consequence of livestock farming: soil erosion. This is when topsoil particles become loosened and detached, which diminishes the quality of the soil and makes it much more susceptible to nutrient runoff.


A degree of soil erosion occurs naturally, but livestock farming greatly accelerates it in a few ways. One is overgrazing, which is when livestock graze on pastures for extended periods without the pastures being given time to recover. The hooves of cows, goats and other ruminant livestock can erode the soil as well, especially when many of them are grazing in one place.


In addition to making nutrient runoff more likely, eroded soil is less fertile and can support fewer forms of plant life. It is also worse at retaining water, which can increase the risk of drought.


Deforestation Due to Livestock Farming


It's impossible to assess the environmental impacts of livestock farming without also discussing deforestation - the practice of permanently clearing out trees from forested land and repurposing the land for other uses. Humans deforest around 10 million hectares of land every year, and 41 percent of tropical deforestation is carried out to make way for cattle pastures.


Deforestation is a monumentally damaging practice, and exacerbates all of the aforementioned impacts of livestock farming: greenhouse emissions, nutrient runoff and soil erosion.


Greenhouse Emissions Caused by Deforestation


When forested land is cut down, greenhouse emissions increase in two ways - one temporary, one permanent.


Trees absorb and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which makes them an indispensable resource for reducing global temperatures. When they're cut down, however, all of that carbon dioxide is released back into the air. What's more, the absence of trees in a previously forested area means that, for an indefinite period of time, any atmospheric carbon dioxide that would otherwise have been sequestered by the trees remains in the atmosphere instead.


The greenhouse gasses emitted during livestock-driven deforestation, combined with the gasses emitted by livestock farms themselves, account for 11-20 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. In the Amazon, which has traditionally been one of the world's largest sequesterers of carbon, so much land has been deforested that the rainforest is in danger of becoming a net emitter of carbon instead.


Soil Erosion and Nutrient Runoff Caused by Deforestation


In forested land, trees play an important role in protecting and preserving the soil. The canopy they provide protects the soil from the sun and rain, while the trees' roots help hold the soil in place.


Needless to say, clearing all of the trees in a forested area means that the soil doesn't get any of these benefits. As a result, the soil becomes eroded even before any livestock might step foot on it, which in turn increases the likelihood of nutrient runoff and water pollution.


The Bottom Line


The environmental impact of livestock farming can't be ignored. The sector's contribution to deforestation, habitat loss and pollution of all kinds significantly exacerbates climate change. Absent a significant reduction in global meat consumption, it will continue to present a formidable challenge to the long-term health of Earth and its many inhabitants.




Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Oregon students are back in the classroom, but their classrooms might not be as energy efficient or climate resilient as they should be.

As the changing climate impacts the state, aging infrastructure in schools is driving up utility costs.

Juliette Poff, marketing specialist with Energy Trust of Oregon, said energy is the second-biggest cost to schools, after teacher salaries.

Poff is a former teacher and she said anything that can make the classroom more conducive to learning is a win.

"Things like lighting can look like more focus for students," said Poff. "Having energy efficient windows can help with air quality, heating and cooling can help with comfort, and all of these things are impactful to the humans that occupy these spaces."

Poff noted that schools are often strapped for resources when it comes to upgrading infrastructure.

Energy Trust of Oregon offers help on that end with expertise and cash incentives for schools.

Over the past two decades, the organization has distributed more than $38 million in incentives for energy efficiency projects like - installing new insulation and windows.

Liberty High School in Hillsboro benefited over the summer from a $2 million upgrade to its H-VAC system, with assistance from Energy Trust of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Energy.

Mia Hocking is the resource conservation manager for the Hillsboro School District and said the new system is much more efficient.

"The efficiency is anticipated to improve enough to save over $100,000 in the electric utility annually," said Hocking. "So, just that alone is incredible."

Poff said the model for upgrading schools in Oregon could be replicated in other states. She said one important element her organization provides is navigation on how to find funding.

"We also work with a number of partners like the Department of Energy," said Poff, "and often schools can combine funding from the state - bonds, as well funding from Energy Trust - and any opportunity to maximize that funding is amazing for schools."




get more stories like this via email

New federal legislation would make polluters pay for the costs of climate change mitigation.

On Thursday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., introduced the "Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act of 2024," which would create a $1 trillion, paid out by the biggest fossil-fuel companies over 10 years.

Funds would be used to rebuild and upgrade infrastructure, clean up the impacts of pollution in communities, and provide climate-related disaster assistance.

Van Hollen said seeking a portion of the fossil fuel industry's profits would not raise costs for consumers.

"It should have virtually no impact on energy costs," Van Hollen contended. "For a couple reasons: It doesn't add to the marginal cost of production, number one, and it only hits the biggest fossil-fuel companies, leaving many other companies in the market to compete with on price."

The legislation is sponsored in the House by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif. The fee would be levied against companies responsible for at least $1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions between 2000 and 2022.

Other climate superfund bills have been introduced in state legislatures in Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and California. Vermont became the first state to pass such a bill this spring.

The federal legislation would not preempt state laws or lawsuits seeking redress from fossil-fuel companies. It would also provide $15 billion to FEMA for climate-related disaster response.

Quentin Scott, federal policy director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is often unable to keep up.

"FEMA always runs out of money before the end of the fiscal year, because climate change has exacerbated extreme weather events, so they just don't have enough money," Scott explained. "This $15 billion is trying to bridge that gap."

FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund was exhausted in August for the second year in a row, and the 10th time since 2001. Last year, the U.S. saw a record 28 separate weather and climate disasters costing at least $1 billion each.

get more stories like this via email

By Audrey Henderson for Energy News Network.
Broadcast version by Terri Dee for Illinois News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

As low-income households face the dual burden of weather extremes and high energy costs, energy efficiency is an increasingly important strategy for both climate mitigation and lower utility bills.

Passive House standards — which create a building envelope so tight that central heating and cooling systems may not be needed at all — promise to dramatically slash energy costs, and are starting to appear in “stretch codes” for buildings, including in Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington and New York.

And while some builders are balking at the initial up-front cost, other developers are embracing passive house metrics as a solution for affordable multifamily housing.

“We’re trying to make zero energy, high performing buildings that are healthy and low energy mainstream everywhere,” said Katrin Klingenberg, co-founder and executive director of Passive House Institute-U.S., or Phius. 

Klingenberg says the additional work needed to meet an aggressive efficiency standard, is, in the long run, not that expensive. Constructing a building to passive standards is initially only about 3%-5% more expensive than building a conventional single family home, or 0%-3% more for multifamily construction, according to Phius.

“This is not rocket science… We’re just beefing up the envelope. We’re doing all the good building science, we’re doing all the healthy stuff. We’re downsizing the [heating and cooling] system, and now we need someone to optimize that process,” Klingenberg said. 

Phius in practice and action

A Phius-certified building does not employ a conventional central heating and cooling system. Instead, it depends on an air-tight building envelope, highly efficient ventilation and strategically positioned, high-performance windows to exploit solar gain during both winter and summer and maximize indoor comfort. 

The tight envelope for Phius buildings regulates indoor air temperature, which can be a literal lifesaver when power outages occur during extreme heat waves or cold snaps, said Doug Farr, founder and principal of architecture firm Farr Associates.

Farr pointed to the example of the Academy for Global Citizenship in Chicago, which was built to Phius standards. 

“There was a really cold snap in January. Somehow the power went out [and the building] was without electricity for two or three days. And the internal temperature in the building dropped two degrees over three days.”

Farr said that example shows a clear benefit to high efficiency that justifies the cost.

“You talk about the ultimate resilience where you’re not going to die in a power outage either in the summer or the winter. You know, that’s pretty valuable.” 

There is also a business case to be made for implementing Phius and other sustainability metrics into residential construction, such as lowered bills that can appeal to market-rate buyers and renters, and reduced long-term maintenance costs for building owners. 

AJ Patton, founder and CEO of 548 Enterprise in Chicago, says in response to questions about how to convince developers to consider factors beyond the bottom line, simply, “they shouldn’t.”

Instead, he touts lower operating costs for energy-efficiency metrics rather than climate mitigation when he pitches his projects to his colleagues. 

“I can’t sell people on climate change anymore,” he said. “If you don’t believe by now, the good Lord will catch you when He catch you.

“But if I can sell you on lowering your operating expenses, if I can sell you on the marketability, on the fact that your tenants will have 30%, 40% lower individual expenses, that’s a marketing angle from a developer owner, that’s what I push on my contemporaries,” Patton said. “And then that’s when they say, ‘if you’re telling the truth, and if your construction costs are not more significant than mine, then I’m sold.’”

Phius principles can require specialized materials and building practices, Klingenberg said. But practitioners are working toward finding ways to manage costs by sourcing domestically available materials rather than relying on imports.

“The more experienced an architect [or developer] gets, they understand that they can replace these specialized components with more generic materials and you can get the same effect,” Klingenberg said.

Patton is presently incorporating Phius principles as the lead developer for 3831 W Chicago Avenue, a mixed use development located on Chicago’s West Side. The project, billed as the largest passive house design project in the city to date, will cover an entire city block, incorporating approximately 60 mixed-income residential units and 9,000 sq ft of commercial and community space.

Another project, Sendero Verde, located in the East Harlem neighborhood of New York City, is the largest certified passive-house building in the United States with 709 units. Completed in April, Sendero Verde is designed to provide cool conditions in the summer and warmth during the winter — a vast improvement for the low-income and formerly unhoused individuals and families who live there.

Barriers and potential solutions

Even without large upfront building cost premiums and with the increased impact of economies of scale, improved technology and materials, many developers still feel constrained to cut costs, Farr said.

“There’s entire segments of the development spectrum in housing, even in multifamily housing in Chicago, where if you’re a developer of rental housing time and again … they feel like they have no choice but to keep things as the construction as cheap as possible because their competitors all do. And then, some architecture firms only work with those ‘powerless’ developers and they get code-compliant buildings.”

But subsidies, such as federal low income housing credits, IRS tax breaks and resources from the Department of Energy also provide a means for developers to square the circle, especially for projects aimed toward very low-income residents. 

Nonetheless, making the numbers work often requires taking a long-term view of development, according to Brian Nowak, principal at Sweetgrass Design Studio in Minnesota. Nowak was the designer for Hillcrest Village, an affordable housing development in Northfield that does not utilize Phius building metrics, but does incorporate net-zero energy usage standards.

“It’s an investment over time, to build resilient, energy-efficient housing,” he told the Energy News Network in June 2023.

“That should be everyone’s goal. And if we don’t, for example, it affects our school system. It affects the employers at Northfield having people that are readily available to come in and fill the jobs that are needed.

“That’s a significant long-term benefit of a project like this. And that is not just your monthly rents on the building; it’s the cost of the utilities as well. When those utilities include your electricity and your heating and cooling that’s a really big deal.”

Developers like Patton are determined to incorporate sustainability metrics into affordable housing and commercial developments both because it’s good business and because it’s the right thing to do.

“I’m not going to solve every issue. I’m going to focus on clean air, clean water, and lowering people’s utility bills. That’s my focus. I’m not going to design the greatest architectural building. I’m not even interested in hiring those type of architects. 

“I had a lived experience of having my heat cut off in the middle of winter. I don’t want that to ever happen to anybody I know ever again,” Patton said. “So if I can lower somebody’s cost of living, that’s my sole focus. And there’s been a boatload of buy-in from that, because those are historically [not] things [present] in the communities I invest in.”


Audrey Henderson wrote this article for Energy News Network.


get more stories like this via email