Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Nicholas D. Carter Profile picture
@NicholasDCarter
Sep 26, 2020 • 9 tweets • 4 min read • Read on X
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There's no reason to exaggerate an anecdote. Just replicate and measure it for its truthfulness.

Which brings me to the thread on my initial thoughts of the new #KissTheGroundMovie now on Netflix. They claim soil is a: Image
I don't know how one can spend 7 years on a project like this and not be shown the science that there's measurable limits to carbon that can be sequestered in soils, and it's easily reversible, especially in pastureland:
fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/… Image
But holistic grazing leader Allan Savory makes many appearances with the usual "grazing reverses desertification/climate change" claims, failing to mention grazing is also the major driver of deforestation & topsoil loss globally. Image
Savory said: "the urine and the hooves of the animals are what causes grass to grow.”

He's a great speaker, but it's as likely the BS coming out of his mouth caused the grass to grow.

His work is based on a strange type of faith, not science: Image
A major way to avoid losing organic matter in soil is avoiding deforestation, draining wetlands, or damaging peat soils:


The aspects on no till, cover crops, compost, & avoiding monocrops, were all great. But it came with a side of grazing pseudoscience.
With the biodiversity claims, we need to ask, "compared to what?"

Restored/protected forests or rewilded grasslands would be far better than even the best pastureland.

Many anthropocentric, colonial, and whitewashing points at play in the documentary.
And then there's the false dichotomies & fear mongering:
'Poisons used during holocaust = pesticides & synthetic fertilizers today = your baby is being breastfed poison.'

I've written alot about organic, stock free, farming. It's best served with science:
awellfedworld.org/issues/climate…
We don't need "regenerative" meat over collective shifts to plant-based.

More to say but will share the podcast I did with @Plant_proof when it's live and post credible evidence of EVERYTHING I say.

Link to podcast episode on the topic

🔊

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Nicholas D. Carter

Nicholas D. Carter Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NicholasDCarter

Nicholas D. Carter Profile picture
Nov 10, 2023
There’s major implications for climate accountability & equity if this new GWP* methane metric is adopted.

New report by me & @changingmarkets analyzing methane (via GWP*) & manipulation by meat & dairy lobbies.


🧵what if NZ, Tyson, & Fonterra used it? changingmarkets.org/wp-content/upl…
Massive increases in farmed animal numbers have led to a 332% increase in methane emissions from them from 1890-2014.


We need to be measuring methane (relative to CO2) with BOTH the warming impact of absolute emissions and the changes in over time. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gc…
Image
Yet GWP* mostly hides the impact of baseline absolute emissions as if it didn’t contributed to warming.

The left graph needs to be transparent for every polluter.

GWP* mostly shows the difference between marginal and additional warming, as shown on the right graph: Figure: Additional vs. Marginal Warming. Graphs from the IPCC Workshop by Andy Reisinger, Vice-Chair WGIII titled ‘ GHG emission metrics: Findings from WGIII’ on June 7, 2023. Based on Chapter 2, Figure 2.SM.9 (extract).
Read 14 tweets
Nicholas D. Carter Profile picture
Jan 15, 2023
Big oil is joining in on the regenerative ranching scam.

🛢️🥩

Very little would be worse for the environment than if these partnerships are taken seriously and we delay action on the many real solutions.

🧵& receipts: ImageImageImageImage
Oil & gas companies are of course throwing funds at anything that claims to drawdown carbon (see: CCS).

But the ability for oil and gas to benefit from the bucolic nonsense of ranching is dangerous. Paul, Carsten, et al. "...
Carbon market schemes are allowing the highest polluters (ie. these many oil and gas companies) to make sketchy carbon offset goals with little guarantees of even medium term storage permanence. The time-limited nature is especially the case with ag:

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Read 6 tweets
Nicholas D. Carter Profile picture
Aug 13, 2022
Methane digesters, propped up by the latest US CH4 reduction plan, rewards industrial dairy, beef & pig operations to produce more manure, usually by increasing # of animals farmed, net increasing CH4, & likely land use & resource use.

🧵 on why this is all a terrible plan: Dairy digester in California. 
These digesters are expensive, and much like the dairy industry now, largely wouldn't exist without subsidies.

In this case incentives for anaerobic digesters include property tax reductions, corporate tax credits, loan programs, & grant programs.

@ALDF There are now 260 anaerobic digesters operating on America's
While some methane can be captured, the issues far outweigh any benefit, especially if it just increases factory farming and delays decarbonization. It's also been shown to increase the amount of ammonia and nitrogen that can leak into waterways.

southernenvironment.org/wp-content/upl…
Read 6 tweets
Nicholas D. Carter Profile picture
Jun 6, 2022
"The livestock sector is currently the single major driver of habitat loss and degradation, which is in its turn a leading cause of species decline and extinction worldwide."

Important study + 🧵thread on this main driver of biodiversity loss:

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
"The production of livestock alters natural habitats not only via land-use change, but also through its outputs of agrochemicals, nutrients, sediments, antibiotics and hormones into natural environments."
"The multiple, synergetic, and ubiquitous past and present processes by which human carnivory threatens the world's biodiversity makes it arguably the most detrimental aspect of our ecology, from a conservation point-of-view."

#WorldEnvironmentDay
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Read 7 tweets
Nicholas D. Carter Profile picture
Jul 4, 2021
Rewilding and allowing native grasses and animals to thrive again has huge ecological benefits. 🧵/1

@WilliamJRipple's et al. measurements as documented in 'Rewilding a Mountain' outlines this well in the semi-arid Hart Mountain antelope refuge in Oregon:
rewildingamountain.com ImageImageImageImage
In 1990, contrary to pressures by cattle groups, the land conservation stewards here voted to ban cattle grazing based on the science showing its ecological degradation to this riparian land. The result:

/2 ImageImageImageImage
The biodiversity increases, including much more birds and antelope, were clearly visualized and measured, further highlighting potentials in addressing the biodiversity crisis through rewilding land dedicated to grazing cattle.

/3 ImageImageImage
Read 6 tweets
Nicholas D. Carter Profile picture
Jun 3, 2021
There's huge variability in GHG estimates from animal agriculture.

Groups game the numbers to suit one's confirmation bias. The FAO has engrained corporate interests (Meat Secretariat) and use the lowest estimate (14.5%) and advocacy groups are drawn to the highest (51%+)

🧵 Credit: Martin Mueller
What's important is knowing how the numbers are influenced so you can critically analyze it. And in reality, there's uncertainty and a huge amount of data that's missing to truly make an exact figure accurate.

Helpful breakdowns by Martin Mueller:
bayern.landwirtschaft.jetzt/en/klimawandel/
This new study just out contributes to the clarification of the quantification of emissions, and asks why the dominant framing from the FAO avoids calls for reductions in animal consumption and the systematic changes needed to influence it.

mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1… @richardtwine
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(