Deforestation is 3rd largest source of emissions

Vegetarian/vegan food is much less environmentally damaging than meat.

From Elena Sgarbossa

A vegan burger uses less than 10% land in its production than production of a beef burger does.

Which means that less forest is cleared.  And if tropical deforestation was a country, its emissions would be behind only China and the USA.  

Moreover, to the emissions produced by land clearing, you have to add in the methane directly produced by beef and mutton.  The rise in atmospheric methane is responsible for 1/3rd of the rise in global temperatures since 1850-1900.  The biggest step you can take to personally help cut emissions and global temperatures is to give up meat and milk.

Preventing a climate calamity is still possible.

 This is an informative video from Climate Adam.  He uses an analogy I've used before: a bathtub.  Virtually every year since 1850, the CO2 we push out into the atmosphere has risen.  Because the outflow from the atmosphere (natural carbon sinks) is less than what we're pumping into the air, the level of CO2 has risen.  Emissions have flatlined over the last 10 years, but they're still more than the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere via carbon sinks.  Using the analogy, the level of water (CO2) in the tub (atmosphere) is continuing to rise, just more slowly.  And thus temperatures continue to rise.  But if we could cut emissions so that they are the same as outflows, the level of water (CO2) would stop rising, and so would temperatures.

Adam makes the point that carbon sinks (where CO2 gets sucked out of the atmosphere) take up around 50% of emissions.  This is only a temporary help, because the carbon sinks (the sea, forests and marshes) are taking less and less out of the atmosphere.  They're filling up.  But it does mean that if we could cut emissions by 50%, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and therefore temperatures, would stop rising (or at least, rise more slowly), though we would still need to cut emissions over time to near zero.  It used to be thought that temperatures would go on rising for decades even after we achieved zero emissions, but this is no longer the scientific consensus.

Now, the good news is that together, emissions from electricity generation and land transport, on average across the world, are roughly 50% of total CO2 emissions.  If we could replace coal and gas in electricity generation, and convert the global car, lorry and bus fleets to electricity, we would have cut emissions by 50%.  In other words, stopping temperatures rising is achievable, and achievable over the next decade.  We would still have to achieve zero emissions, because with the oceans, the carbon sink reduction (the oceans offset and bury CO2) is offset by their thermal inertia — they will continue to release heat into the atmosphere as long as they are cooler than the atmosphere.   But switching to renewables and EVs would give us time to cut emissions from all the other more difficult sectors like cement, steel, air and sea transport and agriculture.

The other climate-warming gas Adam talks about is methane.  Methane comes from gas leaks, rubbish dumps, and cattle and sheep.  Methane has been rising fast, and shows no signs of peaking.  Over a ten-year time frame, methane is 80 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2.  But it quickly decays into CO2, so if we could cut methane emissions, the effects would be rapid.  One third of the rise in temperatures since pre-industrial times is from methane.  So, as we replace gas in electricity generation (and we will for now still need 5 - 10% gas generation to cover dunkelflaute events, because we don't have workable long-term storage), gas leaks will fall.  There are super emitters of methane from rubbish dumps.  And that's easy to stop: just cover your rubbish dumps with a thick layer of earth.  Finally, each of us can avoid beef, mutton and milk.  That's something we can directly do to cut emissions.  Turning vegetarian could be your single biggest step to cutting emissions!  (Buying an EV is another.)

The moral of all this is that we are far from helpless.  CO2 emissions have peaked.  Our task is to bend that curve down, until the level of CO2 in the atmosphere also peaks.  We have to turn the CO2 and methane taps off, and then we will actually be able to avoid a catastrophic climate future.

(One really scary factor driving increasing emissions is AI datacentres.  We need to stop their construction.  Now.)

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.

A sobering look at key climate indicators

 From Dr Aaron Thierry

A sobering look at some key #climate indicators from last year - CO2 Emissions in 2024 - Record High Coal - Record High Gas - Record High Oil - Record High (tied 2019)

www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-glo...

CO2 Concentrations in 2024 - Record High www.noaa.gov/news-release...

Rate of Increase in CO2 Concentrations - Record High insideclimatenews.org/news/2404202...

Surface Air Temperature - Record High First year over 1.5°C above pre-industrial climate.copernicus.eu/year-2024-se...

Ocean Heat Content - Record High phys.org/news/2025-01...

Planetary Albedo (reflectivity) - "declined over the 25 years of precise satellite data" www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...

Earth's Energy Imbalance - "More Than Doubled in Recent Decades" agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/...

Rate of Global Sea Level Rise - "doubled during the past three decades" www.nature.com/articles/s43...

"Oil and gas annual upstream capital expenditures rose by $63 billion year-on-year in 2023 and are expected to rise a further $26 billion in 2024, surpassing $600 billion for the first time in a decade." www.ief.org/focus/ief-re...

This makes depressing reading, doesn't it?  Yet we are not helpless.  If we stop eating meat, we can cut emissions by +-30%.  You could become vegetarian, replace cow's milk with plant milks, and cut your personal emissions.  That is entirely in your control.  It's your choice.  

Second, you can replace your petrol car with an EV, if you can afford it.  In some countries, the sticker price for EVs is already the same as for ICEVs (petrol/diesel cars).   In others, you'll need an above average income to do it.  

You can put solar panels on your roof.  Again, that costs, so you need to have the money.  But if you do, you can cut your emissions, and help save the world.

And you can vote, for the greenest party available, even if it's not perfect.

WE. ARE. NOT. HELPLESS.  Do something.

Humanity quietly passes a remarkable milestone

From Adam Tooze

 

Humanity has quietly passed a remarkable milestone: Alcohol consumption is declining, a turning point in a habit at least as old as civilization itself. This unnoticed shift suggests other long-standing habits (from smoking to red meat consumption) could potentially fade just as effortlessly.

Not "effortlessly".  But, yes, smoking is falling in most developed countries, and vegetarianism/veganism is rising.  No government could try and stop meat-eating --- imagine the backlash! --- but as more and more people switch, it will become less and less normal to eat meat.

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

Last 12 months hottest ever

The last 12 months have been the hottest ever recorded.  

This chart is from Our World in Data.  Look how the temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere have been rising almost twice as fast as in the Southern Hemisphere.   In fact, they are now more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.  We have passed the 2 degrees "guideline" in the Northern Hemisphere.  

This is a terrifying chart.  After the last El Niño, temperatures were supposed to level off or even drop.  But they haven't.   

You would expect our leaders, political and corporate, to be concerned, to be panicking, even.  Yet they are not.  And a supine populace just accepts this.  

It's no good expecting anything to change unless we do it.  We can change our personal consumption to reduce emissions.  For example, we can become vegetarian.  We can buy an EV or a hybrid.  We can replace our gas/oil heating with heat pumps.   We can buy our electricity from green suppliers.  We can put solar panels on our roofs.   We can fly less.  Take public transport instead of driving everywhere.  

Of course, we might not be able to do all these things.  Solar panels have an upfront cost, even if you'll save by reducing how much electricity you'll buy later on.  Or there might not be green electricity supplies in your area.  But you can eat less meat and drink less cow's milk.  That won't add to your costs.  

And we can vote.   We can agitate and write letters to our local councils.  We can support parties which make climate change their priority.

It's up to us.  Don't shrug and say, "it's too hard."  Because if we don't act, we face imminent catastrophe. 

These anomalies are not relative to the period 1850 to 1899, which usually what is defined as being pre-industrial, but to the period 1861-1890.   The shape of the chart won't change, but the Y-scale will shift a bit.

How big meat lies

lies and disinformation about plant-based meat

From DeSmog

This article by Sentient is published here as part of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.


The meat industry and its proponents worked hard in 2024 — not only to increase sales, but also to rebrand and remain relevant. While overwhelming climate science continues to point out the harmful impacts of animal agriculture, and plant-based competitors continue to challenge the status quo, meat promoters stepped up this year, crafting and perpetuating clever narratives to keep consumers hooked.

“Amidst a climate crisis driven in no small part by agriculture, there is a growing interest in healthy, sustainable food,” Jennifer Molidor, senior food campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity, tells Sentient. “The industry has responded by flooding climate conferences with lobbyists promoting meat and dairy — in full force.”

And that’s not all. From promoting “beneficial” regenerative meat, to criticizing “ultra processed” plants, to promoting cow fat for skin care, to manipulating data, Big Meat sidestepped accountability to keep consumers coming back in 2024. 

Disinformation Trend #1: Meat Is ‘Natural’

One of the more popular PR messages regarding meat in 2024 was that animal products are healthier and more “natural” compared to “ultra processed” plant-based meat alternatives.

This messaging is not new. It’s years in the making, with full-page ads in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal back in 2021, and a $5 million Super Bowl commercial in 2020. Backed by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), the ads vilified newly popular “fake meats” as full of “real chemicals,” highlighting “scary” ingredients like methylcellulose — a generally harmless compound used in many foods.

CCF is led by former tobacco lobbyist Richard Berman, and is supported by “restaurants, food companies and thousands of individual consumers,” according to its website. Forbes once described it as a front group for meat, tobacco and alcohol companies.

The narrative of “natural” meat versus “processed” plants persisted into 2024. The marketing tactic conveniently ignores the fact that 99 percent of animals raised for food in the U.S. are factory farmed in inherently unnatural conditions, and undergo much processing to become meat, dairy and eggs.

But this natural meat fantasy didn’t stop at food in 2024, spreading into lifestyle content, and feeding into a growing anti-technology, off-the-grid (though often still on YouTube), homesteading, carnivore and tradwife trend. Raw milk surged in popularity in 2024, as did eating raw meat, and using cow fat for skin care.

The FDA, CDC and New York State Department of Health put out statements this year warning of the health risks of consuming raw milk, and experts have taken to the media to warn of the risks associated with the carnivore diet, and with eating uncooked meat. Dermatology experts also told Sentient that the benefits of beef fat for the skin are minimal.

Though plant-based meat alternatives vary greatly when it comes to nutritional profiles, they are generally considered healthy. In fact, a 2024 review published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology found that risk factors for heart disease, such as LDL cholesterol and body weight, showed improvement when animal-based meats were substituted with plant-based meat alternatives. 

Disinformation Trend #2: Meat Is ‘Eco-Friendly’

Another pervasive meat message in 2024 was that beef — the highest-emitting meat — can somehow be good for the environment so long as raised on a farm that is regenerative, eco-friendly, carbon neutral or some other variation of such terms.

Regenerative agriculture, particularly holistic grazing, promises an alternative to our current food system that incorporates livestock in a way that can regenerate depleted soils. Such promises, however, fall short when it comes to actually curbing climate pollution.

Though regenerative agriculture aims to “bring back bovines,” as described in the 2023 documentary Common Ground, this grouping of grass-fed cattle with wild ruminants like bison is not accurate — at least as far as the environment is concerned. “That’s like comparing apples to oranges,” Molidor told Sentient earlier this year. While there is some debate about this, bison tend to graze over further distances in ways that cause less damage to plants and waterways. Cattle, on the other hand, tend to stick close together and eat just one type of plant until it’s gone.

The regenerative movement — which does offer some benefits for soil health — has also since been co-opted by the industrialized meat industry. A 2024 study by New Climate Institute found that 24 of the world’s top 30 food and beverage producers, including Cargill, Danone and Fonterra, refer to regenerative agriculture in their sustainability communication.

That said, 2024 also saw a possible win in the fight against misleading claims about climate-friendly meat, with Tyson Food’s Brazen Beef brand potentially no longer available for sale. After the U.S. Department of Agriculture rolled out a new “climate-friendly” beef label last year, Tyson soon rolled out its own version: Brazen Beef. Journalists and academics were quick to note serious issues with the claims on the product’s label, particularly the claim (with no data in support) of a 10 percent reduction in emissions.

“In order to claim a 10 percent reduction, you need to establish scientifically a baseline that everyone agrees is the common amount that beef produces,” New York University environmental scientist Matthew Hayek told Corporate Knights Magazine. “There doesn’t seem to be any data that the company itself, or the government who it created that certification in conjunction with, is able to provide.”

Tyson was subsequently sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) for misleading consumers about its efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The suit asked the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to ban Tyson from making “false or misleading marketing claims.” It remains before the court.

At the time this story was published, the webpage for Brazen Meats was not functioning, and the product appeared unavailable for sale, raising questions about the future of the brand. Sentient contacted Tyson about the status of the Brazen line, but did not receive a response by email. We also called Tyson’s consumer relations hotline, and were told by the representative, “I don’t see anything active with that name.” It also appears that a New Jersey meat packer that sold Brazen Beef no longer lists the product on its website.

Caroline Leary, chief operating officer and general counsel for EWG tells Sentient that despite the Brazen Meats webpage being down, the group “remains committed to holding Tyson accountable, by demanding transparency to ensure that consumers are not deceived by false promises of sustainability,” which still exist elsewhere on its site. 

Disinformation Trend #3: Meat Feeds the World

Inflation and food insecurity were also pressing issues in 2024. Meat, dairy and egg industries were there to capitalize, particularly at climate conferences held throughout the year.

At COP28 last spring for example, the Guardian reports that meat lobbyists “celebrated the cut-through of their message that industrial animal agriculture has an important role to play in addressing global hunger.” It adds that U.S. Pork Board representative Jamie Burr also stated that COPs provide an opportunity for U.S. agriculture groups to show how they “feed the world.”

At COP29 last month, the strategy was the same, according to a report by DeSmog. Documents produced by the industry-funded Global Meat Alliance, obtained by DeSmog, encouraged members “to stick to key comms messages, including the idea that meat is beneficial to the environment and will help to ‘feed the world.’”

A spokesperson for the Global Alliance for the Future of Food told the Guardian in April that the idea that industrial agriculture is “critical to address hunger” is one of the greatest myths used by the industry to fend off criticism. Animal agriculture in fact contributes to world hunger, due to the inefficient use of arable land and resources to grow crops for animals, instead of people. Not only that, but the industry’s framing around food insecurity ignores how many climate researchers limit “eat less meat” recommendations to global north populations like the U.S., who consume far more than the global average. Studies suggest that food insecurity could actually be addressed, in-part, by transitioning to a more plant-based food system. Reducing the massive amount of land needed to grow food to feed livestock could lead to more crops being fed directly to people. One study theorizes that if everyone in the U.S. went vegan, an additional 350 million people could be fed. 

Disinformation Trend #4: Trustworthy Academic Research Supports Meat

The year 2024 also saw the meat sector lean even further into academia as a means to appear credible and sustainable.

As environmental scientist Jonathan Foley writes for Project Drawdown: “The livestock industry has spent enormous sums telling us fictitious stories of ‘environmentally-friendly’ beef,” including, he notes, “documentaries, think tanks, university labs, and social media influencer campaigns touting so-called ‘solutions’ to beef’s environmental footprint.”

In 2023, the Guardian exposed The Master of Beef Advocacy, or “MBA” program, created by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, to help meat promoters influence and educate the public on the “sustainability” of beef. That same year, the National Pork Board funded a nearly $8.5 million program with researchers from a variety of U.S. universities, to research and improve the industry’s reputation by boosting public “trust” in pork factory farms. And the year prior, The New York Times exposed how the UC Davis Clear Center did not disclose just how much industry funding it received to promote the environmental friendliness of meat and dairy, under the guise of public sector science.

In 2024, the meat industry took this method of information manipulation a step further, targeting another major competitor: cultivated meat. Once again backed by Richard Berman, another “think tank” was created, the ironically named Center for the Environment and Welfare, this time under the guise of helping “consumers, companies, and stakeholders navigate issues related to sustainability and animal welfare.” In 2024, the group conducted “research” and published media op-eds to thwart the progress of cultivated meat.

The Bottom Line

In 2024, the meat industry’s aggressive rebranding efforts, fueled by clever messaging and industry-backed research, sought to counteract competition from more sustainable plant-based alternatives.

As the inevitable impacts of climate change — along with other issues like bird flu — usher us into 2025, “it’s going to be increasingly difficult,” Molidor says, “for the meat and dairy lobby to rebrand their way out of these serious environmental and human harms.”

I became a vegetarian because I thought eating meat and fish was cruel, not for health or climate change reasons.  I thought it might be bad for my health.  In fact, it was the opposite.  I lost 15 kilos, my blood pressure is normal, my cholesterol is low, my blood sugar is normal, etc, etc.  

 

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.

Gab, gab, gab --- but do nothing

 Updating this chart by O=C=O  (updated for 2023 data)

Gab, gab, gab.  All talk but no action.  Solemn promises to do something, followed by doing nothing.  Greenwashing, which persuades an increasingly anxious public that something is being done, when in fact it isn't.  Fake carbon offset schemes.  Lies, obfuscations, distractions.  While climate dissent is criminalised.   Meanwhile, right wing parties, in the US and Australia, want to stop deployment of renewables altogether.

And to make ourselves feel better, we gab, gab, gab.  And when I say 'we', I mean almost all of us.  For example, at no extra cost to ourselves, we could give up meat, cutting our emissions by 25%.  But we do not.