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:
The idea of the U.S. and UK reaching ‘peak meat’ by 2025 for the sake of the planet is one that completely ignores scientific facts. I wrote a blog and thread explaining why eliminating meat in the U.S. will do little to curb climate change.
I often mention that we need to stay focused on real solutions to reducing emissions to buy time and slow warming. As I state in my blog above, the effort to cut out meat will make minimal impact. We can instead place that energy into adopting new practices and technologies. 5/
Animal ag is making historic strides in sustainability. Last week my colleague, @ucdavis animal scientist @ErmiasKebreab, released a paper alongside @breannaroque with findings that show adding seaweed to cattle feed can reduce methane emissions by 82%: ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-c… 6/
In California, the dairy industry has reduced methane emissions by 25% in just three years using dairy digesters and other technologies. This is a major achievement and should serve as a model to what is possible.
It’s disappointing to have the accomplishments of U.S. animal ag overshadowed by misleading plant-based campaigns. I recently wrote a piece for the @dcexaminer, urging our leaders to get serious about climate-smart livestock farming: washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds… 8/
Our focus should be on sustainable livestock ag, not on pie in the sky rhetoric, which is what the idea of getting rid of meat is. I encourage you to visit @UCDavisCLEAR’s website. Please explore and share the science and truth about animal protein: clear.ucdavis.edu 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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…
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/