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/
It’s true, approx. 10 percent of all U.S. emissions come from agriculture. But animal agriculture’s contribution is around 4 percent of direct emissions from that slice of the pie. The latest @epa numbers actually came out today. epa.gov/ghgemissions/i… 4/
We use direct emissions rather than life cycle assessment (LCA) because it’s most appropriate when comparing different sectors. LCAs for fossil fuel sectors aren't available. In the U.S. cradle-to-grave emissions for beef is 3.3%, dairy – 2%. More: sciencedirect.com/science/articl… 5/
I strive to make my research public – oftentimes, right here on Twitter. If you’re interested, this thread breaks down LCAs extensively:
It’s interesting that I was included in this LAT piece, but the actual authors of the report used as a basis for this column are not quoted. Why? This has the feel of playing the player and not the ball. I have to wonder what the true motives are. 7/
The facts are accessible to those interested in knowing the truth. If you’re familiar with my research, you’re likely aware that I’m dedicated to communicating my work publicly. Here's a recent blog post you may find useful in this conversation: clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/what-if-u… 8/
What is often excluded is that animal ag is making incredible progress in climate mitigation. In California, dairy is on its way to reducing emissions by 25 percent. We released an entire report about this last fall: clear.ucdavis.edu/news/methane-c… 9/
And I’m not the only scientist urging the world to start #RethinkingMethane. In fact, a newly released scientific paper from a group of climate scientists is doing the same, and highlights why reducing methane can have big rewards:
We can’t let articles such as this column act as smokescreens and distractions to the real climate culprits. Here’s a blog with some helpful context to this point: clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/big-oil-d… 12/
There’s also a book by respected and known climate scientist @MichaelEMann explaining these smokescreens in-depth:
When it comes to the climate crisis, writing a misleading headline and article has real consequences. It only moves us further away from solutions by muddying the truth, which will lead us to a warmer world. 14/14
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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…
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/