PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 25, 2016Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change154 citations

Re‐framing the climate change debate in the livestock sector: mitigation and adaptation options

View Full Paper
MRMarta G. Rivera‐FerreFLFeliu López‐i‐GelatsMHMark Howden

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Livestock play a key role in the climate change debate. As with crop‐based agriculture, the sector is both a net greenhouse gas emitter and vulnerable to climate change. At the same time, it is an essential food source for millions of people worldwide, with other functions apart from food security such as savings and insurance. By comparison with crop‐based agriculture, the interactions of livestock and climate change have been much less studied. The debate around livestock is confusing due to the coexistence of multiple livestock farming systems with differing functions for humans, greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emission profiles and different characteristics and boundary issues in their measurement, which are often pooled together. Consequently, the diversity of livestock farming systems and their functions to human systems are poorly represented and the role of the livestock sector in the climate change debate has not been adequately addressed. In this article, building upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report ( IPCC 5AR ) findings, we review recent literature on livestock and climate change so as better to include this diversity in the adaptation and mitigation debate around livestock systems. For comparative purposes we use the same categories of managerial, technical, behavioral and policy‐related action to organize both mitigation and adaptation options. We conclude that different livestock systems provide different functions to different human systems and require different strategies, so they cannot readily be pooled together. We also observe that, for the different livestock systems, several win‐win strategies exist that effectively tackle both mitigation and adaptation options as well as food security. WIREs Clim Change 2016, 7:869–892. doi: 10.1002/wcc.421 This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Benefits of Mitigation Climate and Development > Knowledge and Action in Development

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Rivera‐Ferre et al. (2016) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2296a01ee3c9daa9cd3e64https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.421
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1What is the best use of oil from cotton (Gossypium spp.) and canola (Brassica spp.) for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions: biodiesel, or as a feed for cattle?2016 · 7 citations
  2. 2Impact of Agricultural Productivity Gains on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Global Analysis2013 · 25 citations
  3. 3Issues and options in addressing the environmental consequences of livestock sector’s growth2009 · 43 citations
  4. 4Meeting the Kyoto target: implications for the Australian livestock industries1999 · 9 citations
  5. 5Participatory processes in the soy conflicts in Paraguay and Argentina2010 · 83 citations