Soyboy

‘While many people are now aware of how the fossil fuel industry has deceived us, there’s less recognition of the even grimmer game played by the livestock industry.’ Photograph: FORGET Patrick/Alamy

From The Guardian

Everything that makes campaigning against fossil fuels difficult is 10 times harder when it comes to opposing livestock farming. Here you will find a similar suite of science denial, misinformation and greenwashing. But in this case, it’s accompanied by a toxic combination of identity politics, nostalgia, machismo and the demonisation of alternatives. If you engage with this issue, you don’t just need a thick skin; you need the skin of a glyptodon.

You will be vilified daily as a “soyboy”, a “hater of farmers” and a dictator who would force everyone to eat insects. You will be charged with undermining western civilisation, destroying its masculinity and threatening its health. You will be denounced as an enemy of Indigenous people, though generally not by Indigenous people themselves, for many of whom livestock farming is and has long been by far the greatest cause of land-grabbing, displacement and the destruction of their homes.

You will find yourself up against those who promote paleo diets (with or without added anabolic steroids), “agrarian localists” pushing impossible dreams of feeding 21st-century populations with medieval production systems, and culinary conservatism, which ranges, in different forms, from Donald Trump to MasterChef. You will find yourself fighting not only a very modern and peculiarly vicious demagoguery, but also a very old and deep-rooted romanticism, which still portrays the pastoral life much as the Greek poets and the Old Testament prophets did. There’s a powerful, de facto alliance between the two.

Perhaps most often, you’ll be denounced as a puppet of the World Economic Forum (a target of multiple conspiracy fictions), or a stooge of corporate or institutional power, in the pay of plant-based meat, precision fermentation, Big Lettuce or Big Bug, which are depicted as monstrous behemoths stamping on traditional businesses. As usual, it’s pure projection. Between 2015 and 2020, financial institutions invested $478bn (£380bn) in meat and dairy corporations. But from 2010 to 2020, only $5.9bn was invested in plant-based and other alternatives. Astonishingly, the livestock industry also receives, across the EU and US, about 1,000 times more government funding than alternative products. This includes massively more money for research and innovation, even though meat and dairy are well-established industries, while the alternatives are at the beginning of their innovation phase. Why? Because the livestock industry’s political connections are umbilical.

Tempting as it is to turn away, we simply cannot afford to ignore this sector. A remarkably wide and intense range of impacts – from global-scale habitat destruction to the mass slaughter of predators, river pollution, air pollution, dead zones at sea, antibiotic resistance and greenhouse gas emissions – reveal livestock farming, alongside fossil fuels, as one of the two most destructive industries on Earth.

The chances of a reasoned conversation across the divide are approximately zero. That’s not an accident. It’s a result of decades of the meat industry’s tobacco-style tactics and manufactured culture wars. Clever messaging triggers men who are obsessed by (and anxious about) their masculinity, generating paranoia over “feminisation” and a loss of dominance. The industry amplifies popular but false claims about livestock healing the land and drawing down more greenhouse gases than it produces. These efforts are reinforced by a tidal wave of disinformation from far-right influencers on social media. While many people have now become aware of how the fossil fuel industry has deceived us, there’s less recognition of the even grimmer game played by the livestock industry.

This came to a head at Cop28, which was meant to be the first climate summit at which the impacts of the food system were properly considered. But by the time 120 meat and dairy lobbyists had done their worst, nothing meaningful came of it.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) unveiled a report at the summit that was shocking even by that organisation’s notoriously pro-corporate standards. It greatly underplayed the impacts of the livestock industry and proposed nothing but a series of feeble technofixes to address it, including some that have been wildly overhyped, such as feeding seaweed to cows to limit the amount of methane they produce. I call this approach guillotine syndrome. There might be a slight improvement in efficiency, but it’s still decapitation.

Where was the discussion in this report about reducing livestock production or consumption? On the contrary, it proposed that, for nutritional reasons, the poor world should be eating more meat and dairy. It’s true that many of the world’s poor should have access to more protein and fat, but new approaches, such as microbial proteins, could deliver them to everyone without the import dependency, environmental disasters and health problems caused by switching to a western diet.

So where, in the FAO’s vision, would these extra livestock products come from? Hold on to your seats, because the answer is truly gobsmacking. As the Financial Times reports, the organisation’s chief economist, Maximo Torero, explained that “the way forward was for countries that are ‘very efficient in producing livestock’, such as the Netherlands and New Zealand, to produce more meat and dairy and then ship those products across the world”. Could he really be unaware that both these countries have been thrown into severe ecological and political crisis by the scale of their livestock industries? Yet now he wants them to produce even more – and for poorer nations to become dependent on these imports? Greetings to our visitor from Planet Meat.

The FAO, as the Guardian has documented, has a long and shameful history of suppressing awareness of livestock’s massive impacts. The scientists at the organisation who tried to raise the alarm about the environmental impacts of livestock production in 2006 and 2009 were vilified, censored and sabotaged by senior management. Following the report it published this week, I feel I can state with confidence that the FAO is a major cog in the meat misinformation machine.

The meat industry also nobbled the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Earlier this year, delegates from Brazil and Argentina – major meat exporters – managed to block its recommendation that we should shift towards plant-based diets.

Huge and powerful as these forces are, we need to be brave in confronting livestock production and the dark arts used to promote it. Those of us who do so don’t hate farmers, however much some of them might profess to hate us. We simply seek to apply the same standards to this industry as we’d apply to any other. But when we raise our hands in objection, they are met with fists raised in aggression. That’s the strategy, working as intended.

[George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist]

Denmark introduces a carbon tax on agriculture

Source : Vegconomist

 From Vegconomist

Denmark looks set to introduce what is claimed to be the world’s first carbon tax on agriculture, following negotiations between the government, farmer organisations, trade unions, industry, and environmental NGOs.

The agreement is expected to be formally approved by the Danish parliament in August, and will see a tax of DKK 300 per tonne CO2e introduced on livestock emissions from 2030. This will rise to DKK 750 per tonne CO2e in 2035, but with a basic deduction of 60%; this means that the effective tax will be DKK 120 (€16) per tonne in 2030 and DKK 300 (€40) per tonne in 2035.

“We are investing in the future of our agricultural sector”

The proceeds raised by the tax in 2030-31 will be returned to the industry as a support fund to aid the green transition. The tax is expected to reduce emissions by 1.8 million tonnes of CO2e by 2030, enabling Denmark to achieve its legally binding target of cutting emissions by 70%.

Additionally, 250,000 new hectares of forest will be established in the coming years, and targets have been set to protect at least 20% of nature. Fees for slaughterhouses will be raised by DKK 45 million (€6 million) annually from 2029, and funding will be allocated to upskill labour.

The agreement has been reached despite Europe-wide backlash from farmers against proposed EU environmental policies, which led to some targets being dropped earlier this year. New Zealand has also recently scrapped plans for a tax aimed at tackling livestock emissions.

With the new tax, Denmark continues on its trajectory of progressive agricultural policies. In 2021, the country allocated 580 million DKK to farmers who produce plant-based foods; this was said to be the first time in history that plant foods had been given priority in an agricultural agreement.

In October 2023, Denmark became the first country worldwide to publish a national action plan for plant-based foods. The plan aims to strengthen and promote the country’s plant-based sector as part of the shift toward climate-friendly diets. Its publication came just a few months after a report found that Denmark’s financial sector currently lacks the objectives, knowledge, and ambition to invest in sustainable foods.

In March of last year, the Danish Climate Council recommended that two-thirds of the meat consumed by Danes should be replaced by plant-based foods, and suggested that high-emission foods such as beef should be taxed.

Beef and mutton produce the most methane in agriculture, and methane is 80 times as potent a greenhouse gas over 10 years as CO2 (it takes 12 years for methane to decay into CO2).  Also, expanding beef production means more land clearing, though obviously not in Denmark.  Globally, these two factors make agriculture a major source of greenhouse gases.  In 2024, 88% of Denmark's electricity came from renewables.   And 56% of Denmark's car sales are EVs/PHEVs.   Agriculture is the logical next step to cut emissions.  Heat pumps are another.  Compared to the rest of Scandinavia and Europe, Denmark has fewer heat pumps installed per 100,000 people, partly because its heat pump subsidies are smaller.  Heat pumps are far more efficient for heating in terms of energy use than old-fashioned gas or oil boilers.

Is there any hope at all?

There are some extraordinary things happening in the renewables space.

1. Solar power is up a lot (it varies by country) almost everywhere.  The cost of solar continues to decline, and because the cost of storage is plunging, "firming" solar electricity is becoming easier and cheaper.

2. CATL has introduced improved sodium-ion batteries. Sodium is roughly 1/5th as costly as lithium, so sodium-ion batteries will be much cheaper than lithium-ion. They also have a much longer life, theoretically allowing cars to travel 3 million miles before the batteries wear out. These new batteries will have 10,000 cycles, which will mean that even if they are charged and discharged 100% every day, they will still last 27 years.  Fantastic for stationary (grid) storage.  

3. EVs continue to make up an ever larger proportion of total car sales. In China, 1/3rd of the world's car market, they are +-50%, heading straight towards 100%. EVs (from China) now have the same sticker price as petrol cars. For example, here in Oz, the cheapest BYD Dolphin costs the same as the cheapest petrol Toyota Corolla. As battery prices plunge, EVs are only going to become ever more attractive.


Emissions from land transport and electricity generation are just under 50% of total global emissions. It seems plausible that these will have nearly ended by 2040, putting us halfway down the road to zero emissions. We need to do more (stop eating red meat, replace gas/oil heating with heat pumps/electrical heating, fix cement, steel and air travel, stop land clearing) to bend that curve towards a better outcome, but for the first time in years, I feel optimistic that we at last have a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.  

What can you do to help?  You can cut your personal emissions, by as much as 20-30%, by becoming vegetarian, or at least, stopping eating beef and mutton, and not using milk.   If mankind did that, we would cut emissions by +-70%, adding together the decline in emissions from agriculture and transport and electricity generation.  The more we cut emissions, the sooner temperatures will stop rising.

It has been possible to argue that anything we do is pointless, because China's emissions have just kept on rising.  But this year, or next, China's emissions, as the country installs more and more solar, and EV sales continue to explode, will peak and start falling, and that particular excuse for inaction will disappear.

Let's do this.  

Swapping out red meat & creamy pasta sauce

Well, I knew about the red meat. But creamy pasta sauce? 

From The Guardian

Simple grocery hacks – including swapping out red meat for chicken or plant-based alternatives, opting for dairy-free milk and yoghurt and choosing fruit toast instead of muffins – could substantially cut household greenhouse gas emissions, new research has found.

A report by the George Institute for Global Health found switches could reduce a household’s climate pollution by six tonnes a year [i.e., roughly 2.4 tonnes per capita in Australia, compared with total emissions of 15 tonnes per capita per year], which it said was roughly equivalent to the emissions from an average household’s grid-based electricity use.

Researchers estimated the emissions for more than 25,000 everyday grocery items available at supermarkets including Aldi, Coles, Woolworths, Harris Farm and IGA.

They found replacing 1kg of beef mince with chicken each week could cut more than two tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually, while switching to a meat alternative would save 2.5 tonnes.

Switching one creamy pasta sauce to a tomato-based option each week could remove 270kg CO2 over a year.

Prof Simone Pettigrew, the George Institute’s head of health promotion and a professor at UNSW Sydney, said food was a necessity that contributed to about 30% of global emissions [but that includes land clearing to farm beef and mutton].

“Australians are deeply concerned about the climate, and many people want to do the right thing. But it’s hard to know which products are more sustainable when that information is not available on pack.”

While researchers had known for some time that meat was worse in terms of emissions, and that vegetables were better, Pettigrew said there was a “mountain of products that sit in the middle, and they tend to be the types of packaged foods that sit on our supermarket shelves”.

To make it easier for consumers, the institute has translated its findings into a “planetary health rating” ranging from 0 (worse for the planet) to 5 stars (better). Individual product ratings are available via a free ecoSwitch app, which also suggests alternatives with lower emissions.

If consumers found some swaps too challenging – such as cutting coffee or chocolate – there were plenty of options across other categories such as snack bars, pasta sauce or salad dressing, Pettigrew said.

“There are quite substantial amounts of difference that people can make through relatively minor switches as part of their grocery shopping.”

 

We are not helpless in our struggle to slash emissions.  Yes, much can only be done by governments and companies.  However, we can cut the emissions we are directly responsible for, by making the right choices.    Becoming vegetarian, having an electric car, getting solar panels if you can afford them, stopping flying, replacing your gas/oil heating with a heat pump--taking all these steps could cut the emissions you are directly responsible for by 50 to 80%.

Source: Our World in Data

Kicking fossil fuel out of industry

 From Just Have a Think

Gives an interesting perspective of just how fossil fuels are used in industry, and how we can replace almost all uses with green electricity.  As so often, up-front costs are key.  And as always, a decent carbon price would encourage a more rapid transition to carbon-free industry.

There are 4 main "sectors" where we need to de-carbonise, and they each require different solutions.  The emissions from each sector are not equal, but it helps to break down the problem like this.

1.  Electricity generation.  This is, globally, the sector with the biggest share of emissions, but that varies a bit depending on the country.  The solutions here are obvious, and happening, though not as fast as is needed.
2. Transport.  A mixed bag.  Land transport is moving rapidly towards zero carbon; air and sea transport still has a long way to go.
3. Industry.  This includes steel and cement production, and chemicals and paper.  This video discusses various solutions.
4. Food.  A combination of methane emissions by grazing animals, and deforestation to produce beef.  As big as electricity generation by many analyses, but the hardest to reduce, because people have an emotional relationship with their food.  Politicians interfere at their peril, so shy away.  Yet it is abundantly clear that something will have to be done.

The livestock lobby wages war on Lab-Grown meat

Source: The Guardian

From George Monbiot at The Guardian

For many years, certain car manufacturers sought to obstruct the transition to electric vehicles. It’s not hard to see why: when you have invested heavily in an existing technology, you want to extract every last drop before disinvesting. But devious as in some cases these efforts were, they seem almost innocent in comparison with the concerted programme by a legacy industry and its tame politicians to suppress a far more important switch: the essential transition away from livestock farming.

Animal farming ranks alongside fossil fuel production as one of the two most destructive industries on Earth. It’s not just the vast greenhouse gas emissions and the water and air pollution it causes. Even more important is the amount of land it requires. Land use is a crucial environmental metric, because every hectare we occupy is a hectare that cannot support wild ecosystems.

Wild ecosystems are crucial for the survival of most species on Earth, and of Earth systems themselves: for example, the rainforest and cerrado of South America help to regulate weather systems. The Amazon rainforest is being destroyed above all by cattle ranching, whose expansion is driven in part by the foodie fad for “grass-fed” beef. The cerrado is being trashed primarily by soy farming to produce feed for pigs and chickens.

Feeding ourselves with animal products is a fantastically profligate and inefficient way of using land, swallowing at least four times as much as all the other food we grow while providing just 17% of our calories. More than any other factor, it drives the destruction of forests, wetlands, savannas, rivers and other habitats. Weaning ourselves off these products is as important as weaning ourselves off oil, gas and coal.

How can this be done? Moral suasion – seeking to convince people to switch to a plant-based diet for ethical reasons – is going nowhere: globally, meat-eating continues to rise while the percentage of vegans remains in low single figures in all but a few countries. I’ve long been convinced that the only effective strategy is to produce alternative products that are in effect indistinguishable from meat, dairy and eggs, but are cheaper and healthier. Around the world, scientists and startups are working on it.

There is a wide range of developing technologies, which are often misleadingly reduced to “lab-grown meat” or “cell-cultured meat”. What these terms originally meant was growing whole cuts in a bioreactor on a collagen scaffold. After initial enthusiasm, I came to see this as a dead end: it is simply too complicated and too expensive. Now the terms are often used to cover all new alternatives, including far simpler and cheaper technologies such as brewing microbes.

Such new-protein technologies are the leading threat to the global livestock industry, because they could be used to replace animal sources for everything from cheese and ice-cream to sausages, burgers, eggs, fish and steak, as well as creating a vast new range of foods we cannot yet imagine. Because the protein content is so high and the range of microbes so great, some of these foods could be produced with less processing than the animal-based products they compete with. Unhealthy components such as saturated fats can be excluded, and healthy ones, such as long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, can be bred in.

Last spring Solar Foods, the company in whose lab I first ate a pancake made from bacterial protein, opened its first factory, near Helsinki. The transition to such new-protein sources could be as profound in its impacts as the shift from hunter-gathering to agriculture. If done right, it could massively reduce demand for land and farm chemicals.

Unlike farming, it could ensure that neither inputs (such as fertiliser) nor outputs (such as manure) leak into ecosystems. It could greatly reduce demand for fresh water: indeed, some microbes can be grown in saltwater. It could allow food to be produced in places that can no longer feed their people, as there is insufficient fertile land and rainfall. In doing so, as long as governments prevent large corporations from monopolising the new technologies, it could greatly enhance food security and food sovereignty.

If you doubt the potential of these technologies, you have only to look at the effort deployed by meat corporations and their tame politicians to shut them down. At the behest of livestock lobby groups, lab-grown meat has been banned in Florida, Alabama and Italy. Politicians in France, Romania, Hungary and other US states are seeking to follow suit.

Given the confusing terms used in these laws, legislators don’t appear to be entirely sure what they are banning. But some officials are trying to ensure that the entire new-protein sector is stopped in its tracks. An attempt by the EU to green the food supply by encouraging alternative proteins was crushed by the agriculture commissioner, Janusz Wojciechowski.

Governments seeking to ban alternatives to animal products have scarcely sought to disguise their motivation: protectionism. Several politicians and officials have openly admitted that they’re trying to defend established industries – meat and dairy – against competition. In every other sector they claim to favour “free markets”, and protectionism attracts major penalties. In this sector, it is enforced by legislation.

Now, according to Greenpeace’s investigative outlet, Unearthed, a new campaign funded by the livestock industry and fronted by a former meat executive is pressing for an EU-wide ban. As the far-right Hungarian government has the presidency of the European Council, the campaign could succeed. The UK government’s support for new proteins is a very rare benefit of Brexit.

None of the US and EU moves are subtle. They’re the exercise of brute legacy power. They are reinforced by an outrageous allocation of public spending. Research published in the journal One Earth found that the US government spends 800 times more on subsidising animal products than on subsidising new proteins, and the EU spends 1,200 times.

A new investigation by Kenny Torrella for Vox magazine reports that, far from contesting this anti-environmental market rigging, some of the leading environment groups in the US – WWF, the Nature Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund – are participating in meat industry greenwashing campaigns. Why? The answer seems to be sheer cowardice: their justifications suggest they are terrified of upsetting livestock farmers. Greenpeace UK is highly unusual in seeking to defend the new technologies against the old ones.

We should recognise self-serving corporate propaganda when we see it, confront protectionism and neophobia, and support the technologies that could be our last, best hope of averting environmental catastrophe.

Right now, you could massively reduce your impact on our planet by giving up meat.  Start today.

Hottest temperature ever recorded

 From a toot by earthlyeducation

Sorry I would to retract my previous statement that Sunday July 21 was the hottest day on record. Monday July 22 is now the hottest ever day in recorded history. 

The preliminary global surface temperature for July 22 just came in at 17.15°C (62.87F), obliterating the previous record set just the day before of 17.09C.

The Copernicus data go back to 1940.

Even if we all panic, and move really fast to cut emissions, it will still take +- 10 years to make global electricity generation even 80% renewable and to make the car/light-truck fleet 100% electric.  But you can still do something right now, something which would cut emissions by 30%:  become vegetarian.  That won't take 10 years to take effect.  It'll be immediate.

2 million hectares of Queensland forest destroyed

 From The Guardian

More than 2m hectares (4.94m acres) of bushland in Queensland that included large swathes of possible koala habitat has been cleared over a five-year period, new analysis shows.

The research, commissioned by Greenpeace and conducted by the University of Queensland academic Martin Taylor, found almost all land clearing that occurred in the state between 2016 and 2021 was in areas where threatened species habitat was “likely to occur”.

Almost two-thirds of the cleared area, or 1.3m hectares, was marked by the Queensland government as “category x”, meaning it was exempt from state vegetation laws that regulate land clearing. Some 500,000 hectares of that land was koala habitat, the report said.

Taylor, an adjunct professor at the University of Queensland and former WWF-Australia conservation scientist, conducted the analysis by comparing state government land clearing data to federally mapped areas of environmental significance.

The majority of recorded land clearing occurred in regrowth forest that was more than 15 years old, which Taylor said made it capable of providing rich habitat for native animals.

“Industry voices like to say this is just controlling knee-high regrowth, so it’s just vegetation management,” he said. “[But] a 15-year-old eucalypt forest can be at least 10 to 15 metres high – they are forests.”

Taylor said that while laws in Queensland allow for regrowth forests to be reclassified as remnant once they mature, the requirements to do so are unclear.

“A lot of regrowth 15 years and older could have already become what they define as remnant, making it more difficult to clear,” he said.

Gemma Plesman, a senior campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said the report documented deforestation on a “frightening” scale. She said the state’s annual statewide land cover and tree study (Slats) shows land clearing was driven by beef production.

According to the beef industry, more than 10m cattle graze on Queensland pastures, making it the biggest beef producing state in the country.

“Fast food chains and retailers should be aware that the beef they are selling could come from properties that have bulldozed koala habitat with no government oversight,” Plesman said.

Plesman said environmental law reforms being developed by the federal government needed to address concerns around deforestation in Queensland to be effective.

“This shocking data should be a wake-up call,” she said. “They must address what has made Australia a global hotspot for deforestation.”

The Wilderness Society Queensland campaign manager, Hannah Schuch, said deforestation in Queensland was driving biodiversity loss.

“It’s having an impact on iconic native species like the koala, the greater glider, the red goshawk, it’s tearing down their homes and pushing them towards extinction,” she said.

“We know that erosion and sediment runoff from deforestation is another threat to the already at-risk Great Barrier Reef,” she said.

A spokesperson for the federal environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, said the government was in the consultation process to develop new national environment laws. However, three organisations familiar with the draft laws say they would continue to allow widespread deforestation.

Michael Guerin, the chief executive of Queensland farming body AgForce, questioned the accuracy of the Slats data which was used in Taylor’s analysis. He said deforestation rates were overstated. [Of course he did]

He suggested there should be an on-the-ground survey to confirm deforestation rates. [which is much more expensive and not necessarily more accurate. In fact aerial surveys often miss small areas of clearing, meaning the real total could be higher.]

“Let’s come out and ground truth it,” Guerin said. “Let’s get out on the landscape and spend the money and time so we’re confident about what’s happening. The industry and community is up for that.” [yeah, right]

Australia's "decline" in emissions is solely due to LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry)    There have already been questions and accusations that the data are dodgy.  One claim is that partially cleared land is not picked up by the satellites; only fully cleared land is.  This latest analysis simply adds to the evidence.  

Oh, and I beg you: stop eating beef.  

The problem of methane

 It looks as if emissions of CO2 will peak this year or next, and start falling.  Too slowly, but in the right direction.  As more renewables are installed, and more EVs are sold instead of petrol cars, the decline in emissions will speed up. 

The problem is methane:  it's rising fast.  It's ~82 times as potent as CO2 over 10 years.  It's responsible for 1/3rd of the rise in temps since 1850-1900, the agreed and most practical benchmark for pre-industrial temperatures.   Since temperatures now exceed that 1850-1900 level by 1.5 degrees C, methane is responsible for 0.5 degrees of the rise, and is likely key to the acceleration of the decadal increase from 0.2 degrees per decade to 0.3 degrees.

Now for the good news.  Methane rapidly decays to CO2.  So if we stopped emitting it, we could (optimistically!) cut temps by up to 0.5 degrees C, because atmospheric methane would fall dramatically, and temperatures with it.  Even if we halve methane emissions, we could reduce global temperatures by, say, 0.2 degrees.

40% of methane emissions come from fossil fuels  --- "fugitive emissions", which everybody else calls "gas leaks".   This could be cut by tighter controls.   And as we use less coal and oil, these emissions will anyway decline.  20% comes from rubbish dumps.  This can be cut by covering rubbish dumps with soil.   

40% come from agriculture; mostly from the burps and farts of cows and sheep and other animals we grow for meat.   And this is where you can make a personal difference.  The biggest decline in methane emissions would come from going vegan, but if you can't face that, cutting out beef, mutton and milk would be a good start.  Even going from eating meat once a day to once a week would make a difference.  What's more, cutting back on meat will reduce land clearing and the potentially disastrous clearing and burning of the Amazon rain forest.

We are all consumers and voters.  We can make a difference.  Start today.

Source: Our World in Data
The chart shows methane emissions as CO2 equivalents, but uses a 100-year timescale for the calculation, which reduces the calculated impact of methane four-fold.

Greenhouse gas emissions per 1000 calories

 Here, I talked about greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram.  This chart shows greenhouse gas emissions per 1000 calories.  The chart is from Our World in Data.

The conclusion is the same:  even without becoming fully vegetarian, by avoiding beef, fish, lamb and mutton, you could significantly cut your emissions from food, which makes up ~30% of total greenhouse gas emissions.  Becoming fully vegetarian would cut your emissions even more.  And becoming vegan would be even better.  Don't say tofu is just as bad as beef---in the chart from my previous post, tofu produces 3.2 kilograms of CO2-equivalent per kilogram vs beef's 99 kg CO2-equivalent.

Purity is not essential.  Going from eating meat three times a day to once a day reduces your emissions and animal suffering and forest clearing.  Eating meat once a week instead of once a day, ditto.  You get the picture.

Not eating meat is something we can do personally, individually.  So is buying our electricity from a green supplier* and driving a hybrid or EV.  Together, taking these steps could reduce your emissions by ~70%.  

* Many so-called "green" electricity providers use carbon offsets to "reduce" the carbon emissions produced by burning fossil fuels to generate their electricity.  Most carbon offsets have turned out not to reduce emissions, i.e., to be fake, and many of them are out-and-out scams.  Choose a provider that generates all its electricity from its own wind, solar, nuclear, hydro or wave/tidal electricity, or from contracts it has with wind and solar farms.

The environmental impact of different foods

 From Visual Capitalist

Click on graphic to see it more clearly

Food and agriculture have a significant impact on our planet, particularly in terms of carbon emissions, water withdrawals, and land use.

To visualize how different food items contribute to this environmental impact, the above graphic ranks foods based on their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and water withdrawals, using data from Poore and Nemecek and Our World in Data.

Based on carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) measurements, beef comes in first place as the food with the largest carbon footprint, emitting an astounding 99 kilograms of CO₂e per kilogram of the final meat product.

CO₂e emissions are a standardized measure that express the warming impact of various greenhouse gases—such as methane and nitrous oxide—in terms of the amount of CO₂ that would have the same warming effect.

The production of beef is extremely resource-intensive, demanding substantial land, water, and energy resources. Cows also produce methane during their digestive processes, a gas that has a warming potential 27–30 times higher than that of CO₂ over a 100-year time period [and 82 times higher over a 10-year period].  (See data table in the article)

Following beef on the list is dark chocolate, albeit not very closely.

Most of dark chocolate’s emissions come from land use changes—such as deforestation— which alters the balance of GHG emissions and reduces the Earth’s capacity to absorb CO₂.

All in all, however, the data shows us that animal products are generally more emission-intensive than plant-based foods.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that more than two-thirds of the world’s freshwater withdrawals are used for food production.

Interestingly, the trend that we saw when considering the carbon footprints of foods also applies when it comes to water use. Among the top 10 most water-intensive foods in the world, 70% are of animal origin, highlighting that animal products aren’t only more carbon-intensive but also more water-intensive than plant products.Peanuts, rice, and nuts (which include hard-shelled fruits such as hazelnuts, chestnuts, and walnuts) make up the plant-based outliers in the list.  (See data table in the article from Visual Capitalist)

Eating locally sourced foods is often posed as a solution for lowering our ecological impact, leading to the growing popularity of concepts such as “The 100 Mile Diet.”

An analysis done by Our World in Data, however, shows us that what we eat makes more of a difference in lowering our environmental footprints than where our food comes from.

More specifically, the data highlights that transportation accounts for just 5% of global food emissions. Land use change and farming activities, on the other hand, account for a much more significant portion.

As such, redirecting our attention from the distance food travels to the emissions associated with its production can yield better outcomes in our efforts to make more sustainable food choices.

26% of global emissions come from food, skewed heavily towards beef, dairy and mutton.  By comparison, ~30% come from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, and ~20% from land transport.   The biggest single step you can take to reduce your emissions is to stop eating beef and mutton, and to minimise your consumption of cheese and milk.  Become vegetarian---it's better for your health, and for the planet's too!     If you can, buy your electricity from a green electricity provider (and not one that uses dodgy "offsets" to "reduce" its emissions) and, if you can't afford an EV, buy a hybrid.  They only cost a couple of thousand dollars more than the petrol-only version, but will reduce your emissions from driving by ~40%.

Vegan diet massively cuts environmental damage

Researchers said people in rich nations needed to radically reduce their meat and dairy consumption for global food production to be sustainable. Photograph: Nathaniel Noir/Alamy

From The Guardian

Eating a vegan diet massively reduces the damage to the environment caused by food production, the most comprehensive analysis to date has concluded.

The research showed that vegan diets resulted in 75% less climate-heating emissions, water pollution and land use than diets in which more than 100g of meat a day was eaten. Vegan diets also cut the destruction of wildlife by 66% and water use by 54%, the study found.

The heavy impact of meat and dairy on the planet is well known, and people in rich nations will have to slash their meat consumption in order to end the climate crisis. But previous studies have used model diets and average values for the impact of each food type.

In contrast, the new study analysed the real diets of 55,000 people in the UK. It also used data from 38,000 farms in 119 countries to account for differences in the impact of particular foods that are produced in different ways and places. This significantly strengthens confidence in the conclusions.

However, it turned out that what was eaten was far more important in terms of environmental impacts than where and how it was produced. Previous research has shown that even the lowest-impact meat – organic pork – is responsible for eight times more climate damage than the highest-impact plant, oilseed.

The researchers said the UK should introduce policies to help people reduce the amount of meat they eat in order to meet the nation’s climate targets. Ministers have repeatedly said they will not tell people what to consume, despite the precedent of, for example, taxes on high-sugar drinks.

Prof Peter Scarborough at Oxford University, who led the research, published in the journal Nature Food, said: “Our dietary choices have a big impact on the planet. Cutting down the amount of meat and dairy in your diet can make a big difference to your dietary footprint.”

The global food system has a huge impact on the planet, emitting a third of the total greenhouse gas emissions driving global heating. It also uses 70% of the world’s freshwater and causes 80% of river and lake pollution. About 75% of the Earth’s land is used by humans, largely for farming, and the destruction of forests is the major cause of the huge losses in biodiversity.

Prof Neil Ward at the University of East Anglia said: “This is a significant set of findings. It scientifically reinforces the point made by the Climate Change Committee and the National Food Strategy over recent years that dietary shifts away from animal-based foods can make a major contribution to reducing the UK’s environmental footprint.”

The study also showed that low-meat diets – less than 50g a day – had half the impact of high-meat diets on greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and land use. However, the differences between low-meat, pescetarian and vegetarian diets were relatively small.

Prof Richard Tiffin at the University of Reading said: “This study represents the most comprehensive attempt to link food consumption data to the data on the environmental impacts of food production.

“Encouraging high-meat-eaters to reduce meat consumption and encouraging vegetarians to become vegans should result in lower emissions,” he said. “However, it’s hard to justify changes to the diets of moderate omnivores on the basis of these results, other than to switch to a completely vegan diet.”

The researchers who conducted the new study said diets enabling global food production to be sustainable would mean people in rich nations “radically” reducing meat and dairy consumption.

They said other ways of reducing the environmental impact of the food system, such as new technology and cutting food waste, would not be enough.

The biggest difference seen in the study was for emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas produced by cattle and sheep, which were 93% lower for vegan diets compared with high-meat diets.

There is so much we as individuals can't do about cutting emissions.  Governments are owned by fossil fuel companies and billionaires.  Governments continue to subsidise fossil fuel production.  Changing things means persuading others to vote for parties which will actually enact policies which cut emissions.  We can't all afford an electric car.  And even though electric grids are greening, we still produce emissions every time we turn a light on (unless you can join a utility which produces 100% carb-free electricity) 

But there is at least one thing we can do:  turn vegan.   That will cut your personal emissions by 1/3rd, on average.   Even becoming vegetarian will cut your personal emissions by 15%, according to this study.   We need to cut emissions by 50% over the next 10 years to prevent catastrophic climate change.  If rich countries go vegan, we'll be more than halfway there.  And if we succeed in replacing petrol (gasoline)/diesel cars and light trucks, we'll have achieved the 50% cut we need.  

Let's start with the cow

From a tweet thread by Tony Seba

Let me start with #insulin. In the 1970s, insulin was extracted from the pancreas of animals. In the 1980s, @Genentech, working with Eli Lilly (@LillyPad), developed insulin using a new technology that I call #PrecisionFermentation. It wasn’t animal insulin. It was human insulin.

The mainstream would say: “health care is slow, it can’t be disrupted.” Well, here’s the S-curve of #PrecisionFermentation human insulin. Human insulin disrupted animal insulin in about 13 years.









#PrecisionFermentation is a concept that I coined in my  @rethink_x report ‘Rethinking Food and Agriculture’ with @CatherineTubb in September 2019.

Think about beer #fermentation. You take a microorganism (a yeast) and feed it sugar, wheat, nitrogen.. and out comes beer.

The difference with #PrecisionFermentation: you genetically modify the yeast, so it can produce the ingredient you want. In this case, a #protein.

The #protein itself cannot be #GeneticallyModified. The yeast is, but there’s no genetic material in proteins. None. Anyone who tells you “#GMOprotein” is lying to you. Proteins have exactly no generic material.

How is #PrecisionFermentation going to disrupt #milk? — Milk is almost 90% water. 3.3% of milk is #proteins, and that is the commercially valuable part of #dairy. So, essentially, you disrupt 3% of that milk bottle and the entire dairy industry is gone.

The #PrecisionFermentation disruption of #dairy is a #B2B ingredient #disruption. No consumer behavior change is needed. All the industry needs to do is disrupt protein shakes, protein bars etc. and ⅓ of #dairy industry revenues go away.

This technology has existed for 40 years and they’ve gone through an incredible capability cost curve. #PrecisionFermentation dairy proteins are already in the market (cheese, chocolate, ice cream etc). This is not in the future. This is now.

To give you an idea of the cost curve of #PrecisionFermentation, between 2000 and 2020, the cost per kilo/pound went down by about 10,000x in 20 years from ~$1m to ~$100. That cost curve makes #MooresLaw (computing) look like a straight line into the future.




Over the next ten years, we’re going to experience the #disruption of #food and #agriculture. And I am going to focus on the cow.

Because the cow is — by far — the most inefficient food production technology on the planet.

Every #animal that we use for #livestock is going to be #disrupted. If the cost curve keeps improving the way it has over the last few decades, the cost-per-kilo of #PrecisionFermentation proteins will reach price parity with the cow by ~2025. That’s only three years away.

We know that in #food and #ingredients, #disruptions happen quickly and they happen as S-curves. Think about Pepsi and Coca Cola. In the 1980s, in the United States, they went from all cane sugar to all corn-based sugar in only four years.

This is not a “veggie revolution”.  What is happening today is the ‘Second Domestication of Plants and Animals’. We’re going from domesticating large organisms — cow sheep horse chicken — to microorganisms as a source of food.

#PrecisionFermentation proteins are 5-100x more resource-efficient than the cow. #PFproteins, casein and whey, can be made today using 100x less land than the cow. Think about it. 100x less land.

An Israeli company called @Remilk_Foods announced that they’re going to open the world’s largest facility to create cow-free milk in Denmark. They’re going to make the dairy equivalent of 50,000 cows on 750,000 sq-ft = a standard industrial-size facility. A fermentation farm.

Canada’s dairy industry has about 1 million cows (whole country). Take 20 @Remilk_Foods facilities, i.e. #PrecisionFermentation farms, and they could produce the equivalent of 1m cows. This would take 344 acres and disrupt the whole dairy industry in Canada. That’s it. Gone!

How quickly is this going to happen? — The CEO of @Remilk_Foods says they can produce dairy as cheap as animal protein by 2024, which is within the cost curve that I published 3 years ago. That’s only 3 years away, not 20 or 30 as the mainstream would suggest. We need to prepare.

#FermentationFarms are the new #FoodFarms where we are going to create our proteins. New business model innovations and possibilities will open up, in this case, for example: #FoodAsSoftware.

The #proteins we eat today come from just a few #plants and #animals that we domesticated thousands of years ago. 12 plants and 5 animals account for 75% of food. There are millions of plants & animals on Earth. There’s a huge possibility space out there. #PrecisionFermentation

With #FoodAsSoftware and #PrecisionFermentation, we can make proteins from any animal, from any plant, at speed and scale. The number of possible #proteins mathematically is infinite. I did the numbers. It is larger than the number of atoms in the universe.

And it’s not just about the cow. It’s not even about food. #PrecisionFermentation is disruptive across many sectors. It’s being used for #cosmetics. #Collagen, for instance. #HumanCollagen is being made with precision fermentation. Today!

#SweetProteins are going to be so disruptive! One of those proteins — #brazzein — is ~1000x sweeter than cane sugar. 1 pound of brazzein can sweeten the equivalent of 1000 pounds of sugar. Think about that! Without the #insulin reaction.

The magic #ingredient that makes  @ImpossibleFoods’ meat smell and taste like meat is #heme. Heme is only 2% of their burgers. Think about how  @generalelectric got disrupted with only 2% market penetration of solar, wind & batteries (#SWB). Same thing is happening with #meat.

And you may think: “will this fly in x” or “will they eat it in #Texas?” — Yes, they will. I was at the airport in #Houston, and sure enough, they’re selling #ImpossibleNachos & #ImpossibleQuesadillas. And the menu doesn’t even say it’s vegetarian.








This is not just the #disruption of the cow. This is the disruption of all food that comes from animals: pork, fish eggs etc. All of them can be, and will be, disrupted by #PrecisionFermentation and #FoodAsSoftware.

I expect three phases in the “#Disruption of #Food & #Agriculture”. What we’re undergoing now is the first phase, which is #ingredients, #B2B etc.

The second phase, which starts around 2024, is more complex proteins & meats that will be made with #PrecisionFermentation, and later, #CellularAgriculture.

I expect that the animal extraction industry, the livestock-as-food industry, will be gone by 2035. It’s pretty much over. I expect the dairy industry to be bankrupt by 2030 — that’s less than 10 years away — and the whole livestock industry by 2035.

That doesn’t mean you can’t eat a cow after 2035. You can, but it’s going to be a little bit like the horse and the car. You can still ride horses, but it’s not a mainstream form of transportation, and it’s very expensive. Eating cows will be just like owning a horse today


For those of you who think Tony Seba's views are way out there .... you're wrong. He has consistently called it right for at least a decade. He understands that new technologies grow *exponentially*, not linearly.  And given how high emissions from beef, mutton and other meats are, this could save the world.  Because if we're all eating vat meat and vat eggs and drinking vat milk, then all that land freed up by ending animal husbandry will be able to revert to forest.  And that will be the most powerful carbon capture and storage process we could have.

Do something direct to help the climate

From a toot by Bill Orcutt

When it comes to the #ClimateEmergency - It is not hopeless & we, the people are not helpless! If we take individual action - without asking anyone!

It’s up to us – WE,THE PEOPLE to save planet Earth by becoming #ClimateConsumers who actively mitigate global warming by our daily choices of who we donate to, vote for, invest/divest/bank in; what we buy, eat, drive/pedal; to degasifying & electrifying everything; reduce, reuse, recycle; & consume less. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/12/27/35-ways-reduce-carbon-footprint/

This must see short film: “Wake Up, Freak Out – then Get a Grip” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnyLIRCPajM tells us that “preventing run-away Global Warming is the single most important task in all of human history - and it is up to us to do it. If we don’t then everything else we have achieved in our lives will become meaningless”!

The United nation says: “Everyone can help limit climate change. From the way we travel, to the electricity we use, the food we eat, and the things we buy, we can make a difference.” https://www.un.org/en/actnow/ten-actions

Greta Thunberg @gretathunberg says - “Politicians are not coming to the rescue of planet Earth” https://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2022/10/greta-thunberg-guest-edit-politicians-rescue-planet & “Saving the world is voluntary…we need billions of #climate activists” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/08/greta-thunberg-climate-delusion-greenwashed-out-of-our-senses

Robert Reich @rbreich Says “A handful of billionaires now have unprecedented control over banking, the food we eat, the health care we can access and, now, the information we receive…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_sjfchNsiM&t=15s

William Stanley Jevons said: “Value is created by the consumer, not the producer… the consumer is the ‘ultimate regulator of demand’” - https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/how-humans-became-consumers/508700/

Do you really care about the looming climate catastrophe?   Stop eating meat.  Anything between 15 and 25% (depending on the source of the estimates) of global emissions come from agriculture.  That's something you can do directly to cut emissions.  And reduce cruelty and animal suffering.

800 million Amazon trees felled for beef

Burning forest in Lábrea, Amazonas state in August 2020. Photograph: Christian Braga/Greenpeace

From The Guardian

More than 800m trees have been cut down in the Amazon rainforest in just six years to feed the world’s appetite for Brazilian beef, according to a new investigation, despite dire warnings about the forest’s importance in fighting the climate crisis.

A data-driven investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), the Guardian, Repórter Brasil and Forbidden Stories shows systematic and vast forest loss linked to cattle farming.

The beef industry in Brazil has consistently pledged to avoid farms linked to deforestation. However, the data suggests that 1.7m hectares (4.2m acres) of the Amazon was destroyed near meat plants exporting beef around the world.

The investigation is part of Forbidden Stories’ Bruno and Dom project. It continues the work of Bruno Pereira, an Indigenous peoples expert, and Dom Phillips, a journalist who was a longtime contributor to the Guardian​​. The two men were killed in the Amazon last year.

Deforestation across Brazil soared between 2019 and 2022 under the then president, Jair Bolsonaro, with cattle ranching being the number one cause. The new administration of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has promised to curb the destruction.

Researchers at the AidEnvironment consultancy used satellite imagery, livestock movement records and other data to calculate estimated forest loss over six years, between 2017 and 2022 on thousands of ranches near more than 20 slaughterhouses. All the meat plants were owned by Brazil’s big three beef operators and exporters – JBS, Marfrig and Minerv​a.

To find the farms that were most likely to have supplied each slaughterhouse, the researchers looked at “buying zones”; areas based on transport connections and other factors, including verification using interviews with plant representatives. All the meat plants exported widely, including to the EU, the UK and China, the world’s biggest buyer of Brazilian beef.

The research focused on slaughterhouses in the states of Mato Grosso, Pará and Rondônia, important frontiers of deforestation associated with ranching. It is likely the overall figure for deforestation on farms supplying JBS, Marfrig and Minerva is higher, because they run other plants elsewhere in the Amazon.

All three companies say they operate strict compliance procedures, in an open and honest manner, to ensure they are meeting their sustainable goals.

Nestlé and the German meat company Tönnies, which had supplied Lidl and Aldi, were among those to have apparently bought meat from the plants featured in the study. Dozens of wholesale buyers in various EU countries, some of which supply the catering businesses that serve schools and hospitals, also appeared in the list of buyers.

Nestlé said two of the meatpackers were not currently part of its supply chain, and added: “We may scrutinise business relationships with our suppliers who are unwilling or unable to address gaps in compliance with our standards.”

Tönnies said: “These Brazilian companies process many thousands of animals per year for export,” and claimed it was unclear whether the company was the recipient of products from plants linked to deforestation. Lidl and Aldi said they stopped selling Brazilian beef in 2021 and 2022 respectively.

[The article is long; you can read much more here.]

I beg you:  stop eating beef.  It is one of the biggest things you can do to slash your carbon emissions.  That's before we get to the cruelty and suffering involved in the cattle trade.  When the Amazon forest goes, it will be an irreversible tipping point.  And the whole world will pay.