Australia owns the mine, which holds minerals useful for electronics, aerospace and climate-friendly products, but locals say extraction threatens their lives.

AUSTRALIAN MINERS ALSO THREATENING PRISTINE ROCKIES IN ALBERTA

Election posters for Kirstine Davidsen and Kornelia Ane Benjaminsen from the Siumut party in Nuuk, Greenland [Emil Helms/EPA]

By 

Regin Winther Poulsen

5 Apr 2021

|

Updated: 

18 hours ago

Greenlanders are bracing for a snap election that is being viewed as a referendum on a controversial mine that has not yet opened.

Kvanefjeld, the rare-earth mineral project near Narsaq in southern Greenland, has divided the political system for more than a decade, and is of significant importance to the global mining industry.

KEEP READING

US auto group warns of chip shortage, asks government for help

Japan Airlines to retire 777 planes with Pratt & Whitney engines

New IMF reserves could fund vaccines in poor nations: Rockefeller

Top Senate Republican slams corporate activism over Georgia law

The small town Narsaq in the south of Greenland [Martin Zwick/REDA&CO/Universal Images Group via Getty Images]

Greenland Minerals, an Australian company, owns the site and China’s Shenghe Resources is its largest shareholder.

According to the company, Kvanefjeld has “the potential to become the most significant Western world producer of rare earths”.

On Tuesday, Greenlanders will vote for their national parliament, the Inatsisartut, and municipal representatives.

The decision to greenlight the mine was one of the reasons snap elections were called and has dominated the campaign period.

In late November, Prime Minister Kim Kielsen, who paved the way for Greenland Minerals’ preliminary approval, lost the leadership of his social democratic party, Siumut (Forward), to a former minister in his government, Erik Jensen.

But when Jensen then expressed doubts about the mine, one of the coalition parties, the Demokraatit party (Democrats), left the government, and Kielsen lost his majority.

The biggest opposition party, Inuit Ataqatigiit (Community of the People), has promised to not give a mining licence to Greenland Minerals.

Even though the pro-separatist party is not against all mining, its Member of Parliament Sofia Geisler said they are opposed to extracting processes involving uranium and thorium, two radioactive by-products.

The Siumut party has governed the island, home to about 56,000 people, for all but one term since autonomy in 1979. But according to recent polls, Inuit Ataqatigiit will win the election and become the biggest party in Greenland.

Siumut has argued that the mine is vital for Greenland’s economy and its future ability to become independent from Denmark. The mining company promises that Greenland will receive 1.5bn DKK ($240m) annually for the 37 years they plan to operate the mine.

“More than 90 percent of our economy is based on fishing,” said Siumut leader Jensen. “We have to develop other industries in order to become more independent.”

Greenland has the world’s largest undeveloped deposits of rare earth metals, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The rare-earth minerals in the mountain that Greenland Minerals wants can be used in the production of electronics, aerospace, and – as pro-miners like to point out – electric cars and other climate-friendly products.

The mountain also contains large amounts of uranium that can be used for nuclear power plants.

The Australian mining company has promised more than 700 jobs in the mine, and that about half of those jobs will be occupied by locals in the beginning – opportunities for some of the 6,500 people who live in the Kujalleq municipality, home to the Kuannersuit mountain and the mine project.

The municipality has experienced a sharp decline in population over the last decades, and in Narsaq, the village closest to the potential mine, more than 10 percent were unemployed in 2019.

A taxi drives past a bus shed with election campaign posters for Greenland’s legislative elections in Nuuk, Greenland. The autonomous Danish territory of Greenland votes on April 6, 2021, in legislative elections, wrapping up a campaign focused on a disputed mining project as the Arctic island confronts first-hand the effects of global warming [Christian Klindt Soelbeck/AFP]

But promises of employment have done little to soothe fears among some locals.

“No one will buy meat from a lamb that lived next to a uranium mine,” said Piitaq Lund, a 31-year-old farmer whose 550 sheep roam the area close to the mountain.

The region is the only part of the country that has a climate suitable for farming.

Worried that the mine will see an exodus of families, Lund decided to run for a seat in the municipal council for Inuit Ataqatigiit, to have a say against the mine project.

Ellen Frederiksen, a 61-year old teacher, lives alongside Lund in Qassiarsuk, a small sheep farming village near the mountain of 30 people.

She worries about the uranium dust from the mine and fears a dam will hold the toxic waste.

“We are leaving them [future generations] the problem of making sure that the dam doesn’t overflow or break,” she said. “I just think it is extremely ill-considered.”

Minik Rosing, a Greenlandic geologist at the University of Copenhagen, said he understood locals’ concerns.

“What if the dam doesn’t hold for the thousands of years it has to?” he said. “It’s difficult to conclude scientifically if the mine is a bad or good idea … But the worries are legitimate.”

Jensen claims it is important to extract the minerals because they can be used in the fight against climate change.

Rosing does not buy this argument, however, because the rare-earth minerals are not a scarce resource.

“Geologists often say that rare-earth minerals are neither rare, nor earth. They’re all over the place,” he said. “It’s not like you are morally accountable for climate change if you don’t take advantage of these minerals.”

Looking to Tuesday’s vote, although Inuit Ataqatigiit has strong support, Siumut is the oldest party with deep traditions in many parts of the country.

There are 31 members and seven parties in the parliament.

Whoever manages to make a coalition of at least 16 MPs gets to be in government.

Jensine Berthelsen, political editor at Sermitsiaq, a daily newspaper in Greenland, said that Inuit Ataqatigiit might have problems finding government partners because of its strong stance against the mine.

“It’s going to be tough negotiations because of the mountain,” she told Al Jazeera.

Johnson & Johnson has taken over production of its vaccine at a Emergent BioSolutions facility in Baltimore, which was previously manufacturing J&J and AstraZeneca doses.

By 

Josh Wingrove and Jordan Fabian

Bloomberg

5 Apr 2021

President Joe Biden’s administration is working with AstraZeneca Plc to find new manufacturing capacity in the U.S. after the company agreed to abandon a Baltimore Covid-19 vaccine plant that will focus exclusively on making doses for Johnson & Johnson.

The talks are the latest development after an error at the Emergent BioSolutions Inc. facility — in which ingredients for the two companies’ vaccines were mixed up — led to a batch of 15 million doses worth of drug substance being spoiled.

J&J announced Saturday that it had taken over production of its vaccine at the Emergent facility, which was manufacturing J&J and AstraZeneca doses. The Department of Health and Human Services worked with AstraZeneca to shift production from the plant.

AstraZeneca’s vaccine hasn’t been authorized for U.S. use yet the government has ordered 300 million of its shots, some of which have already been made. The U.S. loaned 4.2 million of its first doses to Canada and Mexico, which have cleared use of the vaccine.

The manufacturing move was made “to ensure that Johnson & Johnson is the only drug that is being produced at this site, given that the issue was about the cross-contamination of AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said at a briefing Monday. “We’re working with AstraZeneca to immediately identify other facilities to continue their domestic manufacture of AstraZeneca drug substance and several options.”

J&J’s single-dose vaccine has been authorized in the U.S., “hence the importance of Johnson & Johnson production continuing to be expedited,” Psaki said.

Timeline Intact

The Baltimore plant hasn’t been authorized for production of J&J’s vaccine, meaning that none of the doses administered and distributed in the U.S. so far were manufactured there or affected by the error. The U.S. still has enough doses to meet its goal of having vaccine supply for all U.S. adults by the end of May, Psaki said.

“We were not betting on these to vaccinate the American public,” she said.

J&J said in a statement Saturday that it “is adding dedicated leaders for operations and quality, and significantly increasing the number of manufacturing, quality and technical operations personnel to work with the company specialists already at Emergent.”

At a briefing Monday, White House Covid adviser Andy Slavitt stressed the importance of that influx of people, along with the plant now producing only one vaccine’s drug substance instead of two. HHS supports both actions, he said.

Moving AstraZeneca from the facility will “eliminate the potential for any cross-contamination,” Slavitt said. “This was a decision that HHS made with Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca in complete collaboration, and so AstraZeneca also agreed that this was the right course.”

The decision “says absolutely nothing about our belief one way or the other” as to whether AstraZeneca’s vaccine will eventually be authorized in the U.S., he said. Slavitt said the AstraZeneca vaccine will go through the Food and Drug Administration authorization process “as soon as an application is submitted.”

AstraZeneca has been confronted with growing concerns in the U.K. and Europe over its vaccine, which is the backbone of the U.K.’s successful inoculation campaign. Many countries around the world were relying on AstraZeneca to drive their immunization programs and some are reconsidering.

The U.K. over the weekend confirmed seven people had died from rare blood clots after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine and Australia is also investigating a case of clotting, raising questions about the safety of the widely used vaccine. More than 18 million doses have been administered in the U.K. and the regulator there insists the shot is safe.

SOURCE: BLOOMBERG

 

New IMF reserves could fund vaccines in poor nations: Rockefeller

G20 is expected this week to back $650bn in new IMF allocations to help countries cope with COVID pandemic.

Vaccination rates and economic development are diverging widely across the world [File: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters]

6 Apr 2021

Moves to bolster the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) emergency reserves could provide the $44bn needed to vaccinate 70 percent of the population in lower- and middle-income countries by the end of 2022, at no added cost to rich countries, according to a new Rockefeller Foundation report due to be released on Tuesday.

Finance officials from the Group of 20 top economies are expected to back a $650bn new allocation of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) this week to help countries cope with the pandemic and its economic effects.

SDRs are supplementary foreign exchange reserves used by the IMF to make emergency loans. Countries facing balance of payments shortfalls can exchange their SDRs with other IMF member countries for commonly traded currencies to meet short-term needs.

Vaccination rates and economic development are diverging widely across the globe, according to the IMF and other experts.

The Rockefeller report says rich countries could reallocate their new SDRs to quickly close the funding gap and get more people vaccinated around the world, preventing virus mutations that could stall a global economic recovery.

Africa’s needs

The World Bank estimates that Africa alone would need about $12bn for COVID-19 vaccines to attain sufficient levels of inoculations to interrupt virus transmission, according to a new paper by the lender and the IMF.

The paper, published on Monday, argued for an extension of the Group of 20’s debt service moratorium through to the end of the year, citing the continued high liquidity needs of developing countries and their deteriorating ability to sustain their debts.

The World Bank estimates that Africa would need about $12bn for COVID-19 vaccines to attain sufficient levels of inoculations to interrupt virus transmission [File: Ebrahim Hamid/AFP]

But it said additional resources would be needed, noting that the amount of money Africa needed was about the same as the total amount of official debt service payments already deferred by 45 of the poorest countries participating in the G20’s Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI).

The Rockefeller report noted that high- and upper-middle-income countries accounted for 86 percent of COVID-19 shots administered worldwide as of the end of March. It said advanced economies should aim to reallocate at least $100bn in SDRs to fund the vaccination drive and other measures needed to help poor and middle-income countries.

Donor countries could pledge new SDRs to the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust, which provides loans to 63 low-income countries, but could also provide them to 16 approved institutions, including the World Bank, which could make them more widely available via low- or no-interest loans.

Another option would be for those institutions to use re-allocated SDRs to back the issuance of bonds earmarked specifically for pandemic response and the vaccination drive, the report said.

SOURCE: REUTERS 

News | Today's latest from Al Jazeera

When is Ramadan 2021?

By 

Alia Chughtai

6 Apr 2021

The first day of fasting for the holy month of Ramadan, which is determined by the sighting of the new moon, is likely to be Tuesday April 13.

To declare the beginning of Ramadan, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim-majority countries depend on the testimonies of local moon sighters.

BECAUSE THE FULL MOON LAST'S THREE DAYS 13,14,15 AND COULD BE DECLARED ON ANY OF THOSE DAY

News | Today's latest from Al Jazeera

A cold civil war is being waged in America

Republicans who failed to overturn the 2020 presidential election are now trying to prevent future electoral defeats through voter suppression.


David A Love
29 Mar 2021

Protesters gather outside of the Georgia State Capitol to protest new legislations that would place tougher restrictions on voting in Georgia, in Atlanta, March 4, 2021 

[Dustin Chambers/Reuters]


In the US, the right-wing voter suppression efforts reached a level not seen since the era of segregation, when white supremacists in the South had passed laws to deny Black Americans the right to vote and threatened everyone who dared to resist with violence.

The nation is now divided between people who want a multiracial democracy in which every American is allowed and encouraged to vote and those who yearn for an anti-democratic system in which an extremist white minority has unchecked control over everyone else. The latter group is represented by the Republican Party, which is brazenly waging a cold civil war by pushing for unprecedented voter suppression measures targeting minority and marginalised communities.

In response to the Democratic Party’s victory in the 2020 presidential and congressional elections, Republican-controlled state legislatures have proposed 253 bills in 43 states that aim to prevent millions of Americans, and especially Americans of colour, from voting in federal and state elections.

In Georgia, Governor Brian Kemp signed a law on March 25 that will, among other things, curtail early voting, shorten the length of runoff elections – such as the two Georgia Senate runoff elections in the past election cycle that allowed the Democrats to control the Senate – and make it a crime to provide food or water to people waiting in line to vote. In predominantly Black and Brown Georgia communities, voters waited in line for up to eight hours in the 2020 elections, so these new measures could leave thousands of them unable or unwilling to vote in future elections.

The law also makes producing a photo ID mandatory for absentee voting and gives the Republican-controlled state legislature more control over the administration of elections. According to critics, by expanding the state legislature’s influence over the election process, and making it easier for them to remove state and local election officials refusing to collaborate with them, the law makes it easier for the Republicans to overturn legitimate election results that are not favourable to their party and agenda.

Similarly, Florida Republicans are pushing for perplexing voting restrictions, which are trying to fix “problems” that do not exist. Senate Bill 90, the main vehicle for Republican-led voter suppression in the state, for example, proposes to ban the use of ballot drop boxes, to prohibit anyone other than an immediate family member from helping a voter return a mail-in ballot, and to make a request for a mail-in ballot valid for only one election cycle instead of two. Republicans claim all these measures are necessary to prevent election fraud, even though they themselves admit that none of these has ever caused any significant irregularities in voting in past elections. If this bill becomes law, however, it is clear that it would disfranchise many Black and other minority voters, and give the Republicans an advantage.


In Wisconsin, whose prior voter suppression measures have impacted Black and student voters in urban areas, the Republicans are floating a bill that would change requirements for indefinitely confined voters, institute stricter voter ID laws, and bar election funding from private organisations, among a variety of other things.

In Texas, once again under the guise of protecting “election integrity”, bills have been proposed to increase the use of “poll watchers” – something that raises the spectre of state-sanctioned voter intimidation. These bills also aim to limit mail-in and curbside voting, restrict officials from offering unsolicited ballots and require people with disabilities to produce a note from a doctor or a government agency to vote absentee – measures that would disproportionately affect voters who are more likely to vote against the Republicans.

In Arizona, a Republican lawmaker, Shawnna Bolick, introduced a bill that grants the legislature the ability to revoke the secretary of state’s certification of the presidential election results at any time before the inauguration of a new president. Democratic lawmakers said if the Republican legislature passes the bill, they will work to defeat it by public referendum. The state already has laws in place that restrict minority communities’ ability to vote. The Democrats already took two voting provisions – a policy that requires an entire ballot to be thrown out if the ballot was cast at the wrong precinct, and a state law that bans the collection of ballots by third parties, sometimes called “ballot harvesting” – to the Supreme Court claiming that they discriminate against racial minorities in the state.

Iowa, too, enacted a law to preserve “election integrity” and combat election fraud, despite no widespread election fraud being witnessed in the state in recent history. The law reduces the early voting period from 29 days to 20 days, closes polling sites at 8pm rather than 9pm, and requires that mail-in ballots are received by Election Day, rather than postmarked by that day. And voters who do not vote in a single election are purged from the voter roll if they fail to reregister or report a change of address.

Only federal intervention can stem this tide of voter suppression and thwart the efforts of numerous states to undermine the electoral process and democracy.


The Democrats in Congress are already pushing for a federal voting rights bill that would expand federal control of local election rules.

The For the People Act aims to introduce universal same-day and automatic voter registration, ease voter ID requirements and expand voting by mail and early voting. The act would also end the gerrymandering of congressional districts, and reform campaign finance and government ethics laws. Another bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act – named after the late civil rights leader and member of Congress – will restore the Voting Rights Act and combat voter suppression and racially discriminatory election laws. “We are witnessing right now a massive and unabashed assault on voting rights unlike anything we’ve seen since the Jim Crow era. This is Jim Crow in new clothes,” said the recently elected Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, while urging his colleagues to pass this legislation.

Endangering the passage of this crucial bill are the antiquated, undemocratic rules and structures of the US Senate, which amplify the power of rural, less populous and former slaveholding states.

Specifically, a senate rule called the filibuster, which requires 60 votes rather than a simple majority to pass legislation, is being used by the Republicans to block Democratic efforts to prevent state-level voter suppression. In the past, this rule was used by white supremacist lawmakers to uphold slavery and racial segregation, deny the rights of Black Americans and block anti-lynching laws. Now it is the most efficient tool they have to stop the Biden administration from passing the For The People Act. Democrats must change this rule if they have any chance of implementing a pro-democracy, pro-voting rights agenda. President Joe Biden recently lambasted the filibuster and depicted it as a relic of the Jim Crow era in the once-segregated South. Yet it is still not clear whether he will be able to annul this rule.

Republicans are intent on holding on to power at all costs, like the Afrikaners in apartheid South Africa. The former party of Abraham Lincoln and emancipation has decided that the best way of dealing with the country’s changing demographics and the growing rejection of their core policies is to deny basic citizenship rights to large swaths of the population. And they are not even trying to hide the fact that they only want a specific subset of Americans, who support them and their discriminatory policies, to have a say on the country’s future.

Earlier this month, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, for example, criticised Democratic efforts to expand access to voting by baselessly claiming that such moves would provide voting rights to “illegal aliens” and “child molesters”. He then revealed the real reason behind his objection: If that happens, he said “[the Democrats] will win and maintain control of the House of Representatives and the Senate and of the state legislatures for the next century.”

Around the same time, in a Supreme Court hearing on Arizona voting restrictions, a lawyer representing the Arizona Republican Party explained why the suppression measures are necessary. “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said lawyer Michael Carvin. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”


America travelled down this dangerous path before.

There were hopes for the establishment of multiracial democracy in America in the post-Civil War Reconstruction era. In 1868, only three years after the end of the Civil war, South Carolina became the first US state to have a majority-Black state legislature. By 1877, when Reconstruction ended, it is estimated that as many as 2,000 Black men were holding public office across the country. But the country did not remain on this promising path for too long.

White supremacists swiftly retook control of the South through the anti-Black domestic terror, lynchings and assassinations of Black political leaders, and voter suppression laws including poll taxes and literacy tests. In some states, in order to vote, Black people had to answer ridiculous questions like how many bubbles were on a bar of soap or how many jelly beans were in a jar. Black people were denied the right to vote in the South until the civil rights movement led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Now, the US is repeating the mistakes of history. A right-wing mob tried to take over the US Capitol and deny the winner of a legitimate and just election the presidency. They failed, but now their lawmaker allies are trying to overturn the will of the people through legislation and deny millions of Americans the right to vote. The future of America is at stake.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.


David A Love
Philadelphia-based freelance journalist, commentator and media studies professor

Floyd Trial Unfolding As A Civics Lesson

The Tougher question is what moral lesson will be drawn at the end? So far, we've seen the decent humanity of bystanders and emergency workers. They have highlighted the cruel indifference of power and privilege. Two Americas are on trial, the New Confederates and the America of multiracial and popular democracy

 

New paper explores possible effects of bridge construction on manatees

DAUPHIN ISLAND SEA LAB

Research News

 

IMAGE: A MANATEE SWIMS BETWEEN THE SPANS OF THE MOBILE BAY BRIDGE IN LOWER ALABAMA. view more 

CREDIT: DISL'S MANATEE SIGHTING NETWORK CONTRIBUTOR R. SYMES

A new publication from the Dauphin Island Sea Lab's Marine Mammal Research Program (DISL) examines how bridge-building and in-water construction activities may affect manatees and other large aquatic species. The article, which was recently published in The Journal of Wildlife Management, addresses the direct causes of injury and death and the longer-term, cumulative impacts on manatees and their habitats.

Some issues associated with construction activity include possible entanglement in barriers such as booms and siltation screens, loss of important habitats such as seagrass beds, and increased vessel activity near construction sites.

"Boat strikes are a major cause of manatee deaths, and increased presence of boats and barges in construction zones puts manatees at greater risk in these areas," stated lead author and manager of DISL's Manatee Sighting Network, Elizabeth Hieb. "Increased noise in construction areas can also mask the sound of approaching vessels, making it more difficult for manatees to avoid collisions," added Hieb.

DISL's new publication also reviews best practices to reduce the negative effects of construction on aquatic species. DISL researchers hope their work can be used to better understand and reduce the scope of risks associated with the construction of bridges, marinas, boat launches, and other infrastructure.

Manatees may be particularly vulnerable in areas along the northern Gulf of Mexico coast where less is known about their abundance and distribution. Data collected by DISL's Manatee Sighting Network since 2007 suggest that more manatees are seasonally migrating from Florida to Alabama and nearby waters in recent years. Construction projects planned in Mobile Bay, such as the expansion of the I-10 Bayway and deepening and widening of the Mobile Bay ship channel will benefit from the data and other information compiled in this timely review.

"This is not just an issue in Alabama or the U.S., but also globally," said Hieb. "More and more people are living in coastal areas where large species like manatees, dolphins, turtles, and fish also live, so manatees are a great model species for understanding how construction may affect many different species."

###

You can help contribute data to DISL's Manatee Sighting Network by reporting manatee sightings at 1-866-493-5803 or online at http://www.manatee.disl.org. You can also follow the Manatee Sighting Network on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/mobilemanatees.

Beef industry can cut emissions with land management, production efficiency

Ranchers in United States, Brazil and other regions can help create a more climate-friendly beef system

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

Research News

 

IMAGE: RESEARCHERS FOUND THE MOST POTENTIAL FOR INDUSTRY TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND BRAZIL. view more 

CREDIT: KENTON ROWE FOR THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

A comprehensive assessment of 12 different strategies for reducing beef production emissions worldwide found that industry can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by as much as 50% in certain regions, with the most potential in the United States and Brazil. The study, "Reducing Climate Impacts of Beef Production: A synthesis of life cycle assessments across management systems and global regions," is published April 5 in Global Change Biology.

A research team led by Colorado State University (CSU) and funded by the Climate and Land Use Alliance found that widespread use of improved ranching management practices in two distinct areas of beef production would lead to substantial emissions reductions. This includes increased efficiency to produce more beef per unit of GHG emitted - growing bigger cows at a faster rate - and enhanced land management strategies to increase soil and plant carbon sequestration on grazed lands.

Globally, cattle produce about 78% of total livestock GHG emissions. Yet, there are many known management solutions that, if adopted broadly, can reduce, but not totally eliminate, the beef industry's climate change footprint, according to lead author Daniela Cusack, an assistant professor in the Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability at CSU.

Overall, the research team found a 46% reduction in net GHG emissions per unit of beef was achieved at sites using carbon sequestration management strategies on grazed lands, including using organic soil amendments and restoring trees and perennial vegetation to areas of degraded forests, woodlands and riverbanks. Additionally, researchers found an overall 8% reduction in net GHGs was achieved at sites using growth efficiency strategies. Net-zero emissions, however, were only achieved in 2% of studies.

"Our analysis shows that we can improve the efficiency and sustainability of beef production, which would significantly reduce the industry's climate impact," said Cusack, also a research associate at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama. "But at the same time, we will never reach net-zero emissions without further innovation and strategies beyond land management and increased growth efficiency. There's a lot of room, globally, for improvement."

Global analysis

Researchers analyzed 292 comparisons of "improved" versus "conventional" beef production systems across Asia, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Latin America and the U.S. The analysis revealed that Brazilian beef production holds the most potential for emissions reductions.

In the studies analyzed, researchers found a 57% GHG emission reduction through improved management strategies for both carbon sequestration and production efficiency in Brazil. Specific strategies include improved feed quality, better breed selections and enhanced fertilizer management.

The biggest impact was found in integrated field management, including intensive rotational grazing schemes, adding soil compost, reforestation of degraded areas and selectively planting forage plants bred for sequestering carbon in soils.

"My home country of Brazil has more than 52 million hectares of degraded pastureland - larger than the state of California," said Amanda Cordeiro, co-author and a graduate student at CSU. "If we can aim for a large-scale regeneration of degraded pastures, implementation of silvo-agro-forestry systems and adoption of other diversified local management strategies to cattle production, Brazil can drastically decrease carbon emissions."

In the U.S., researchers found that carbon sequestration strategies such as integrated field management and intensive rotational grazing reduced beef GHG emissions by more than 100% - or net-zero emissions - in a few grazing systems. But efficiency strategies were not as successful in the U.S. studies, possibly because of a high use of the strategies in the region already.

"Our research shows the important role that ranchers can play in combatting the global climate crisis, while ensuring their livelihoods and way of life," said Clare Kazanski, co-author and North America region scientist with The Nature Conservancy. "By analyzing management strategies in the U.S. and around the world, our research reinforces that ranchers are in a key position to reduce emissions in beef production through various management strategies tailored to their local conditions."

Darrell Wood, a northern California rancher, is an example of a producer leading the way on climate-friendly practices. Wood's family participates in the California Healthy Soils program, which incentivizes practices with a demonstrated climate benefit.

"As a sixth-generation cattle rancher, I see nothing but upside potential from using our cattle as a tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions," Wood said. "Taking good care of our grasslands not only benefits climate, but also wildlife and the whole ecosystem that generates clean air and water. It'll help the next generation continue our business, too."

Next steps

Although the research shows a significant reduction in the GHG footprints of beef production using improved management strategies, scientists don't yet know the full potential of shifting to these emission-reducing practices because there are very few data on practice adoption levels around the world.

"Asia, for example, is one of the most rapidly growing beef markets, but there is an imbalance between the amount of research focus on improving beef production and the growing demand for beef," Cusack said. "We know with the right land management and efficiency strategies in place, it's possible to have large reductions in emissions across geographic regions, but we need to keep pushing for additional innovations to create a truly transformation shift in the way the global beef system operates to ensure a secure food supply and a healthy environment."

###

Additional co-authors on the paper include Alexandra Hedgpeth, Kenyon Chow and Jason Karpman (University of California, Los Angeles); and Rebecca Ryals (University of California, Merced).