Using a global average for emissions often mischaracterizes U.S. cattle. Regularly cited @OurWorldInData calculates GLOBAL beef emissions at an average of approx 132 lbs CO2e/2.2 lbs beef – and that’s including all GHGs. But this number doesn't accurately portray the U.S. 1/
Important note: Our World in Data specifically looks at data around global issues such as climate change – hence the name. The publication’s data around emissions is not flawed rather, the way some interpret the data is incorrect. I’ll clarify what this data means for the U.S. 2/
Here, the carbon footprint of 2.2 lbs of beef is 48.5 lbs CO2e with methane. W/o methane, it’s 21 lbs CO2e. The global figure is 5-10x the U.S number! A major difference. Global emissions don't accurately reflect individual countries. #rethinkingmethane 3/ theconversation.com/why-methane-sh…
Using only global emissions ignores the fact that some nations are responsible for much higher – or lower – emissions than other countries. This detail absolutely matters when discussing climate change solutions. You can read more on my op-ed: plantingseedsblog.cdfa.ca.gov/wordpress/?p=2… 4/4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Coincidentally – or not – Greenpeace has a similar story. They end theirs with a quote saying the CLEAR Center is adopting the tactics of the tobacco industry.
I want to address this ridiculous accusation first. It’s a bunch of bull, and not the kind I’m used to. 2/
These people know nothing about the CLEAR Center. We have a staff of 2. That’s it. They are long-time public servants for UC Davis. To equate them to tobacco lobbyists is inaccurate and unimaginable if you knew the dedication this team has to improving our world. 3/
The U.S. dairy sector can be climate neutral by 2041. Our paper from @UCDavisCLEAR and @drsplace, describes one of many pathways the sector can take to reach neutrality.
In this paper, we use GWP* to calculate the U.S. dairy sector’s warming impact on our climate. Judging how a sector’s emissions impact temperature aligns with the Paris Climate Accord, as the agreement aims to keep temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius. 2/
GWP* wasn’t created by the dairy sector. Researchers at the @UnivofOxford recognized that methane warms differently than CO2. Knowing how to calculate the warming impact of emission sources can help us make informed decisions when targeting reductions. 3/
Manure on California dairies is mostly stored in lagoons where the lack of oxygen leads to the formation of methane. But manure is more than waste. Take a look at this explainer from PhD student Alice Rocha on how manure is managed on dairies 2/ clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/how…
Converting a lagoon into a digester leads to organic matter in manure becoming biogas, which is 60% methane. Biogas can be used to power vehicles, generate electricity, heat homes or as renewable natural gas. Watch this video to see a digester on a Central Valley Dairy 👇 3/
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: