Carbon dioxide emission is the iconic image of pollution. I vividly remember reading science textbooks throughout grade school with pictures of factories spewing a dirty brown gas into the atmosphere. I was repulsed. People need to do something about this, I thought. As it turns out, I — not to mention many other advocates — may be looking at global warming all wrong.  By focusing solely on carbon dioxide, we have overlooked other dangerous greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide produced by the agriculture industry. These gases have had detrimental effects on our planet and will continue to do so unless remedied in the near future.  

According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 97 percent of the scientific community agrees that humans have caused global warming δ— but their consensus is misleading. Indeed, environmental organizations have largely ignored methane and other greenhouse gases while explaining how to combat global warming.  Instead, these advocates tout a “green” lifestyle focused on one’s carbon footprint — carpooling or installing solar panels. However, this analysis leaves other greenhouse gases unaccounted for.  

The reason for this simplification is unclear. Perhaps environmentalists do not want to challenge producers of methane gas and nitrous oxide, namely the agriculture industry.  In 2015, lobbyists spent over 132 million dollars defending agribusiness, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Alternatively, carbon dioxide activists have not yet taken the methane problem seriously enough. Either way, we can and should do more to reduce our greenhouse gas footprint. 

Most methane gas is produced when livestock digest their food. According to an Oct. 30, 2009 article in Science magazine, methane is a “25 to 100 times more harmful greenhouse gas than CO2 over a 20 year time scale.” This greenhouse effect is exacerbated by the fact that methane has a high radiation factor, meaning it can trap more heat than any other greenhouse gas, as reported by the Environmental Protection Agency. Even though industries emit more carbon dioxide than methane, methane’s warming potential is much more severe. Many environmental organizations do not explain this distinction. In fact, some of the most renowned environmental organizations, such as Green Peace and the World Nature Organization, focus solely on carbon dioxide and fossil fuels. Little, if any, of their advocacy is aimed at methane.  

The World Nature Organization omits mention of the negative effects of methane on their website. For example, after discussing the dangers of carbon dioxide, they conclude that “a consumer shift to locally grown foods can also help mitigate global warming because of a reduction in fuel used to transport the goods.”  This statement is deceptive. Animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gas emission than all the transportation industry combined, as reported by the Food and Agriculture Administration. Therefore, decreasing transportation-related greenhouse gases is not enough. Switching to locally grown food will not curb the production of greenhouse gases like methane or nitrous oxide, which pose a bigger threat than carbon dioxide does under this model. 

By not properly acknowledging these greenhouse gases, many environmental agencies are committing an injustice against the world. We are now exceeding the worst-case climate change scenario predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate’s 2014 annual report. If emissions continue at the current rate, global temperatures may rise 4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrialization levels. 

If so, thousands of species could go extinct, and cities like Miami, New York City and Hong Kong could be submerged under water as a result of rising water levels. This crisis is testament to the fact that conservation efforts cannot afford to be based on incomplete information.

Such negligence was spotlighted in the 2014 documentary film “Cowspiracy,”  produced by Leonardo DiCaprio. The film targets the environmentalists who are unaware of the threat of methane emissions from cow livestock. The world’s cows produce approximately 150 billion gallons of methane per day, according to a Nov. 26 2013 International Business Times article.

“Cowspiracy” filmmaker Kip Anderson asked Bruce Hamilton, executive director of the Sierra Club, about the role animal livestock plays in global warming. Hamilton’s response featured in the film is, “Uh, well what about it?” 

The lessons from this film were daunting. According to the same Oct. 30, 2009 article in Science magazine, over a 20-year period, methane could warm the climate 86 times more than carbon dioxide. Also concerning is the fact that “livestock is responsible for 65% of all human related emissions of nitrous oxide—a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide,” as detailed in a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. And our leading advocates against climate change do not prioritize this.

Environmental researcher Dr. Richard Oppenlander explained the gravity of the situation during another “Cowspiracy” interview with Kip Anderson: “Without using any gas or oil ever again from this day forward, we would exceed our maximum carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions, 565 gigatons, by the year 2030.” 

 After learning this and undergoing this environmental awakening, Anderson decided to become a vegan, in addition to adhering to other green practices. 

This makes what environmental agencies are saying all the more incredible. The Environmental Protection Agency website’s “Student’s Guide to Global Warming” states that people talk about carbon dioxide the most “because we produce more carbon dioxide than any other greenhouse gas, and it’s responsible for most of the warming.” But carbon dioxide is not the worst greenhouse gas. Therefore, the EPA’s suggestions of changing light bulbs and reducing carbon dioxide emissions by carpooling or using green energy are not sufficient.

With more information, we could be doing more. One solution Anderson offers is to stop eating cow products to reduce our methane footprint. However, another alternative could involve the introduction of natural methane sinks, like woodland soil, into livestock farms. Yet another possibility is to recommodify beef as a special occasion meat. 

Many environmental organizations cannot be trusted as the leading authorities on climate change. They have ignored a big part of the climate change story that has lead to mass scale environmental degradation. If we are going to save our planet, we need to incorporate methane-reduction programs in addition to our carbon footprint ones.