Thread:
Putting burning forests into perspective: “Underneath West Virginia and England are vast sleeping jungles, over 300 million years old, filled with centipedes the size of alligators and scorpions the size of dogs.” /1
“Under West Texas is a tropical coral reef from a 260-million-year-old ocean, visited, in its day, by sharks with circular saw teeth. Under Saudi Arabia are whole seas of plankton that pulsed with the seasons and sunbathed under the waves in the age of dinosaurs.” /2
“This is what we are burning at Earth’s surface today. We’re not just burning down the Amazon. We’re burning down all the forests in Earth history that we can get our hands on.” /3
“For every worrying part per million that CO2 goes up from burning fossil fuels, atmospheric oxygen goes down an equivalent amount, and then some.” /4
“As a result, oxygen is dropping far faster from burning fossil fuels, and their untold forests, than it is from burning just the trees available on the planet’s surface. We’re reversing tens of millions of years of photosynthesis all at once.” /5
A recent @TheEconomist article has claimed that we should treat beef like coal to save the planet. We need to reduce emissions where we can, including livestock, but I have a few issues with their story.
This article is clearly aimed at readers in the U.S. and the West, to reduce beef consumption. But it uses global emissions which don’t do a great job of characterizing the impact livestock in the U.S. has on climate change. 2/ bit.ly/ch4vsco2
It attributes the “full impact of deforestation to the agriculture that results from it.” We absolutely need to stop deforestation. But American beef consumption doesn't lead to that, in part because of where our beef is typically exported. 3/ bit.ly/deforestationb…
~0.35%. That’s the annual methane reduction needed for agriculture CH4 to be #ClimateNeutral. Reduce ~5% annually, we can neutralize all additional warming from ag CH4 since the '80s. WE CAN DO THIS!
GWP* vs GWP100 better describes how #methane emissions impact the climate. Using GWP100 overestimates the warming impact of constant CH4 emissions by 3-4 times.
AND GWP100 misses climate benefits with decreasing emissions.
AND undersells warming when CH4 emissions rise.
2/
Why is GWP* important? From the paper: GWP* emphasizes CH4 reductions can only contribute meaningfully to limiting climate change, as long as CO2 hits net-zero.
GWP* shows the true benefits w/ CH4 cuts. Making the work farmers/ranchers are doing to cut CH4 more significant. 3/
THREAD: The growing popularity of meat alternatives has not affected animal-sourced meat sales. Promoting plant-based alternatives as a recipe for #climatechange solutions is dangerously misleading and distracting. theguardian.com/environment/20… 1/
While it may be true that meat alternatives are seeing a rise in sales, what the @guardian fails to provide is – and this is typical of the plant-based agenda – CONTEXT. Did you know that meat sales are actually at a record high? Up by 20%! morningagclips.com/meat-purchases… 2/
It should be noted, the pandemic has changed our eating habits with many opting to cook at home rather than eat out. It’s possible we may see a dip in meat sales as life gets back to normal, but this doesn't mean the end of meat is near. For reference:
NEW BLOG/THREAD: It’s clear the firehose of misinformation around livestock’s impact on climate is ramping up. When I see misleading headlines on perceived credible media, it disappoints. My new blog brings context that is often missing from this convo. clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/bogus-bur… 1/
This headline for an @latimes column is not only incorrect, but the context within this article lacks any weight to make a real argument supporting the statement. The author says most emissions from agriculture stems from animal ag – that’s inaccurate. latimes.com/business/story… 2/
One fact I’m ALWAYS upfront about is this: There ARE climate impacts from animal ag. They tend to be overblown, but reducing them can absolutely help in our fight against climate change. Swapping burgers is not the climate savior some tend to believe. 3/
Accounting correctly for methane’s short-lived nature isn’t greenwashing, it’s science. This great paper reinforces what we at @UCDavisCLEAR have been saying – agriculture methane warms differently than fossil CO2. 1/
LINK: doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.…
We need to rethink methane from ag, because it doesn’t warm like fossil CO2. Methane persists in the air for 12 years before most is removed. CO2 lasts for 1000 years, building up and warming long after it’s emitted. Here's a deep dive into ag CH4: 2/ clear.ucdavis.edu/news/methane-h…
If you haven’t seen it you, you should watch the CLEAR Center’s video on #rethinkingmethane, goes into more detail about how methane warms: 3/
An interesting take by the @WSJ on balancing a healthy diet and a healthy planet. It’s becoming clear that animal-sourced foods can be part of a human-health solution. But it misses that animal protein can also be part of a healthy planet. 1/ wsj.com/articles/the-k…
Animal-sourced foods can be a #climatechange solution. I invite @garytaubes to check out resources on the incredible strides the dairy and beef industry are making toward sustainability. The California dairy industry is on its way to climate neutrality: 2/ clear.ucdavis.edu/news/methane-c…