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…
And @virginia_tech researchers recently released a report stating how eliminating dairy cows in the U.S. would have a minimal impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but would lower the supply of essential nutrients: 4/ vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2020/…
In fact, methane from cattle doesn't have the same warming impact on the planet as CO2 from fossil fuels: 5/ clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why…
In the U.S. and Europe, meat production has increased while GHG emissions have dropped: 6/
Thank you @garytaubes for your work and for highlighting this discussion in your article. Happy to talk more around this topic. Here's a link to the @UCDavisCLEAR website for more information about animal ag's relationship with the environment. clear.ucdavis.edu 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: Could eliminating meat from our diet be a simple solution to curbing our climate crisis? You may have heard the saying, ‘nothing good comes easy’. Well, yes. It’s not that simple – #climatechange has no easy solutions. My new blog explains. bit.ly/ghggurublog1204 1/
I want to start by stressing this: I have no beef with what you eat, whether that be a plant-based burger, one grown in a lab, or the old-fashioned kind from a cow – because that is your choice. 2/
As a scientist at the intersection of livestock & the environment, I work to reduce the environmental impact of animal protein for those who choose to eat it. It’s my duty to provide you with facts & resources around this subject so you can make the right decisions for you. 3/
NEW BLOG + THREAD: 'Reduce your carbon footprint' is a propaganda buzz phrase. Plain and simple. The idea of changing individual actions in hope of positively impacting the planet is part of a PR campaign by the fossil fuel industry. LINK: bit.ly/37ehbbu 1/
This @mashable article by @SkepticalRanger begins by describing a 1971 TV PSA some of you may remember. The ad shows a Native American man mourning Earth, which is now littered with trash and plastic pollution. It aims to touch on your emotions. 2/ in.mashable.com/science/15520/…
Who do you think sponsored that PSA? The beverage industry. The group responsible for the plastic pollution itself. The blame however, is thrown on the consumer. It’s been some time, so here's that PSA: 3/
THREAD: This is what PR looks like. The @guardian cites a @Greenpeace analysis to support an outrageous (and simply incorrect) message. This piece is not based on accurate scientific facts instead, it has a clear-cut agenda with a message to spread. 1/
PR has no place in journalism but here we are – again. Greenpeace, by their own account, is a non-profit NGO rooted in activism. Activism has a necessary place in society, but when it comes to the issue of climate change, science and emissions expertise must prevail. 2/
The article claims EU livestock are producing more greenhouse gases than all cars and vans within the union. Not only is this an apples-to-oranges comparison, but it unfairly and deliberately omits key data to skew favor one way while vilifying the other. 3/
This 2010 article by Raymond Pierrehumbert (@ClimateBook), the Halley Professorship of Physics at @UniofOxford is full of great info. In it he argues why we desperately need to focus on CO2 emissions. He sums it up nicely in the last paragraph:
There isn’t a single metric that perfectly captures the climate impacts of all greenhouse gases. Though it would be nice, our attempts to do so are misleading us and driving us to focus climate efforts on gases that will have an overall minimal effect on global temperatures.
2/
If there is a desire for a single, hand-dandy way to measure GHGs, we should ensure that it describes actual warming (e.g., GWP*) and not just CO2 equivalence (i.e. GWP).
3/
THREAD: I have BIG news! It's now evident that California dairies are on the path to climate neutrality. This is no longer just a concept. Once we start #rethinkingmethane, U.S. animal agriculture WILL become a leader in sustainability & climate mitigation. Let's unravel. 1/
We can now say, the amount of methane produced by CA dairy farms is less than it was in 2008. This means more methane is being broken down in the atmosphere than is being emitted, leading to less methane in the atmosphere & less warming. 2/
Contrary to popular belief, cattle are doing their part in the fight against climate change. I'm eager for policymakers to use CA dairy as an example of why understanding the details in the differences of greenhouse gas behavior matters when discussing climate impacts. 3/
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…