Thread by @GHGGuru

Dear @Forbes: the writer responsible for your recent piece on meat and climate, @TweetsByMPR has grossly misrepresented livestock’s contributions to climate change. He stated that livestock emits more than half (51%) of global GHG and promoted fake meat as a solution. /1

@TweetsByMPC added an author’s note, stating that he stands by ‘his’ livestock GHG number (51%), arguing that the 14.5% FAO figure only includes direct emissions, which is factually wrong. The FAO LCA figure includes direct and indirect emissions fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf. /2

All leading national and international bodies, including IPCC, FAO, EPA etc agree that direct and indirect global (!) livestock GHG emissions are around 14.5%.

In contrast, the Worldwatch Institute, (three former Worldbank employees) shared the (non-peer reviewed and unpublished) 51% figure for livestock emissions, which your author uses as base argument for recommending diet changes and use of vegan meat substitutes. /3

To my knowledge, besides the movie ‘Cowspiracy’, no credible organization has endorsed the 51% number and scientists have critiqued the irresponsible use of this inflated estimate. /3 blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/c…
ghgguru.faculty.ucdavis.edu/2018/11/16/the… /4

Readers might view this @Forbes piece as use of “fake numbers to promote fake meat”, which cannot be in the interest of your esteemed journal. /5

For full disclosure of my credentials, publications and funding, I am adding my full CV. ghgguru.faculty.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/upl… /6

*TweetsByMPR, not TweetsByMPC —- typo.

@AgusBC3, as one of the leading IPCC livestock experts, what is your take on this discussion of global livestock and climate. @Forbes published contributions of 51% (by Goodland & Anhang). I pointed them to FAO’s 14.5% but @TweetsByMPR feels it only describes direct emissions.