Shh.. We Don’t Talk About Cows!

Sri City: We don’t talk about cows, not in climate meetings, not in headlines, and certainly not at dinner. When it comes to climate change, we’ll debate pipelines and power plants, but whisper about cows and livestock, never. To understand “why we don’t talk about cows” it is first important to ask “why we should”. Cows and other farm animals produce a substantial amount of methane from their digestive process. Methane gas (CH4) from livestock is 86 times more destructive than Carbon Dioxide (Co2) from vehicles. It is much more potent than carbon dioxide because of its shorter atmospheric lifetime, which means it contributes more to warming in a shorter amount of time, even though a single carbon dioxide molecule stores more heat. So yes, there is more to climate change than just fossil fuels. In a 2023 report published by the Food And Agriculture Organisation (FOA) of the United Nations it is estimated that “[a]griculture contributes to nearly half of the global anthropogenic methane production, followed by fossil fuels and waste.” 

Methane production is not the only thing which makes livestock a climate issue. Raising livestock is an intricate system which extends far beyond the barn. Water consumption is another major environmental concern associated with this sector. Meat and dairy products are incredibly water intensive. Animals need water for drinking, cleaning and cooling but the largest share of water use actually occurs indirectly through feed and fodder production. Livestock eat water intensive grains like maize, soy and grass so all of the water embedded in the grain and in the backend essentially is considered  part of the  virtual water footprint of that product. 

Photograph: Peter Cade/Getty Images

A global assessment by Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012) found that the blue water footprint of industrial beef production in South Asia (which includes India) is around 1,471L/kg. This indicates that these large numbers do not just belong in the far west in fact these are super local. This same assessment provides a water footprint of industrial chicken production in India which is 313 L/kg. To put these numbers into perspective, consider something as ordinary as a chicken zinger burger from KFC, producing just one of those can use around 250 liters of water. This amount of water is roughly equivalent to an entire week’s worth of average showers. 

These figures compared to the global west are exponentially low because their hamburger patties are made out of beef, and beef consumption in India is much less than the other western countries. However, India is the second largest beef exporter in the world as of 2024 reported by The Wire India which makes us one of the biggest producers of beef. Most of the water, feed and land use happens during production not consumption. So, even if Indians consume a lot less meat than people in the Global West, the environmental stress is focused here, where the animals are raised and processed.

India, a country with 69% dryland (UNFCCD, 2010), growing competition for land resources, rapidly worsening water stress conditions, and expanding population uses 7.68 million hectares of land for growing fodder crops and 10.24 million hectares of land for permanent pasture and grazing to support livestock. The cattle population in the vicinity of Rajasthan's Ranthambhore National Park mainly relies on forest land for feed. This pressure causes biodiversity loss and forest shrinking.  A similar argument is made by George Monbiot in his 2017 Guardian article “Goodbye - and good riddance - to livestock farming” “[t]he rich mosaic of rainforest and other habitats that once covered our hills has been erased, the wildlife reduced to a handful of hardy species.” Livestock agriculture is responsible for 41% of worldwide deforestation and approximately 80% of the Amazon rainforest has already been destroyed due to cattle ranching. The most perplexing part of this is that such destruction goes unnoticed and is disguised by big political parties as normal agriculture activities. 

With all this being said without even touching the cost of suffering and cruelty which tags along with this industry, now we know why we should talk about cows and livestock in general, “why don’t we talk about it?” This is because any mention of meat in the context of climate change can trigger strong reactions and spark discomfort. Food is deeply tied to culture, identity and habit that’s why discussions on livestock’s role in climate change rarely stays scientific and instead turns social, emotional and even political. But recognising the issue isn't about shaming diets, it’s about encouraging small, realistic shifts in the consumption patterns by diversifying meat sources or moderating meat and dairy intake.

The global meat and dairy industries are among the most politically connected sectors in the world, backed by billions of dollars through subsidies. Talking about livestock in climate debates becomes threatening for the economic structure which is built around land feed and exports. As a result it has become a systematic reason for avoidance. We need to start thinking about who benefits and who bears the cost of all this. It is the small farmers who are affected because subsidies overwhelmingly favour large industrial producers, making it harder for small farmers to compete. These people are the ones who are paying the real cost. 

Now I understand that this is a wicked problem and wicked problems don’t have simple solutions. Some individual changes in choices wouldn’t create a scalable impact, this is the most overly used argument in this context. This is precisely why we need to look at this issue through a different lens. With INR 2800 per capita income of an average Indian it would be unreasonable to ask a below middle class or middle class household to rethink their dietary choices. But, here we are talking about the elite, the upper middle class, and the top 1% of India’s population who hold 40% of the national wealth. If this group were to make small dietary shifts such as replacing a typical breakfast of cow’s milk and eggs with plant based alternatives such as oat milk and nut butter they could save nearly 450 litres of water every day. Moreover, if this section of society reduces its investments in the livestock sector or connected sectors, it can drive a meaningful level of structural change. The top 1% and upper middle class drive a disproportionate share of market demand for high resource foods like dairy, meat and animal based products. If this group begins to reduce their consumption it will change the demand patterns that big food companies respond to. This can eventually redirect investments away from intensive livestock systems and push the industry toward more sustainable production. So, until we can talk about meat without fear, we can’t talk about climate honestly either. Tiptoeing around livestock will not save our planet.