Last week, Colorado’s Sen. Michael Bennet introduced a new bill to study methane emissions from cattle burps. The aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
As a scientist, I find this approach to climate science patently absurd.
To be exceptionally clear, I fully support more research dollars in just about every area of study. I especially support more funds for topics that might help mitigate climate change, including this one.
I also acknowledge that studying seemingly obscure questions often leads to greater and unpredicted advances in the long run, so I completely support Bennet’s general efforts for scientists to learn more about the chemical process of cow stomach fermentation and gas expulsion.
Where I’m getting stuck, however, is turning this scientific interest into a federal bill with staff oversight — versus a more standard grant money allocation model — all in the name of environmentalism. Because if we’re talking about environmentalism, the obvious solution is not to reduce methane from gaseous cow burps, it is to eat less beef and dairy.
This is hardly the first time researchers have pointed out that altering dietary intake can produce massive environmental benefits, and it’s not even the first time I’ve pointed out that Colorado might be looking at a future without cows. We have long known that cattle products have a disproportionate impact on greenhouse gas output, not to mention the outsized use of land and water compared to other foods.
In fact, some research suggests that merely swapping chicken for resource-intensive beef on your plate might cut as much as half of your dietary carbon footprint. Even better, swapping that cow for legumes cuts down your environmental footprint even more, a move that might greatly benefit overall American health given our propensity to overlook necessary grains and vegetables.
But going green is not the only benefit of reducing our reliance on cow products. There are substantial health implications of consuming excess beef, with high intakes of red and processed meats greatly increasing health risks for cancer, diabetes, heart disease and more. Especially considering that estimates show only 12% of Americans make up 50% of total U.S. beef consumption — specifically skewed toward men and people between the ages of 50 and 65 years old — there’s absolutely cause for concern about overconsumption.
There are also financial arguments for why continuing to invest in cow products makes little economic sense. Unlike older generations, younger generations are much more likely to be vegetarian or vegan by choice.
According to one survey, more than 50% of Gen Z are mostly vegetarian with 21% being vegan, consuming no animal products at all. Given this trajectory, why would we prioritize new federal funds toward sustaining the cattle industry when it’s clear that’s not the direction we’re generally heading?
This is to say nothing of the upcharge of buying beef for protein versus most other options, a reality that matters to many Americans as grocery prices continue to surge.
In fairness, I understand where Bennet is coming from. The agricultural sector accounts for about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions, and Colorado has a lot of cattle ranches contributing to that total.
He’s likely doing his best to represent constituents by advocating green solutions to prop up a rapidly dwindling industry. No one wants to be the harbinger of bad news, and particularly not a U.S. senator.
But objectively, if you look beyond the needs of cattle ranchers — a group that not unsurprisingly backs this bill — to a greater good, this legislation is an inefficient approach to mitigating climate change and securing food sources. There are simply better ways to use federal funds and resources than sustaining the cattle industry.
Worse, such efforts likely come with a hefty price tag and lower return on investment compared to the much easier, cheaper, healthier and frankly far more obvious answer of simply reducing our intake of beef and dairy.
So while Bennet may want to do his best to support politically convenient constituent groups, Coloradans can point out when he’s heading in a wrong direction.
In this case, when it comes to mitigating climate change and reducing methane from cattle, forget creating federal oversight to study cow burps and just skip the hamburger. Sometimes, it really can be that simple.
Trish Zornio is a scientist, lecturer and writer who has worked at some of the nation’s top universities and hospitals. She’s an avid rock climber and was a 2020 candidate for the U.S. Senate in Colorado.
The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.
Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.