Skip to main content


Meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

“A leak of a draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on #ClimateChange (#IPCC) report..has been particularly enlightening when it comes to just how much how delegations negotiate, watered down & delete scientists’ findings.”

https://qz.com/ipcc-report-on-climate-change-meat-industry-1850261179 #science #food
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

"While Monday’s IPCC report was the result of synthesizing years of research, Brazil and Argentina have been diligently pushing to delete references to “plant-based diets,” meat as a “high-carbon” food, and “Meatless Mondays” for years, according to a previous draft leaked in 2021 and analyzed by Unearthed, Greenpeace’s investigative outlet." #ecocide
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I presume milk is added to dark chocolate to make milk chocolate, so 'dark chocolate' should probably just be read as 'chocolate'.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

we really got ask why The World's Biggest Poluters are allowed in the room or given any say in efforts to combat climate change.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Why are there three 'dairy' lines on this chart? Should beef (dairy herd), cheese and milk be seen as cumulative? It's weird to see them as individual lines with such different emissions
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Content warning: long, contrary

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Looks like if we even just recommended a non-ruminant-based meat diet would be doing a lot better.

Weird how running billions of tiny methane factories all over the world is creating greenhouse gasses.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

This is why we are doomed.

Greed/ignorance/politics/normalcy bias
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I'm team Mediterranean diet. The data informed me a long time ago that the food industry is biased against health in favor of the highest profit possible.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Humble opinion, it would be appropriate to add a cautionary note on the huge differences between emissions per kg from industrial animal farming and traditional, small scale farms.

First, because it is necessary to correctly interpret data.

Second, because otherwise traditional farmers will receive that data as an attack on their means of living - which it shouldn't be. And that may end up eroding support to limit industrial, large scale farming.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

It should be per 2,000 calories or per gram of protein, but otherwise this is a very telling graph.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Beef is so far out there, that the only worthwhile talking point remaining is why dark chocolate is in second place.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

graph is “Per kilo” but there is a HUGE difference how much is an average daily dose here. Meat’s footprint is way more than here when taking the consumption into account.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

for anyone who’s interested, the book “Regenesis” by George Monbiot examines many different ways to produce food and many diets touted to be better for the environment and reports how feasible they all are.

Food production and climate change can be polarised topics. So here’s a gentle reminder to be wary of who you’re getting your information from and what their motives are.

The New Scientist sums up “Regenesis” nicely: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25433870-500-regenesis-review-farming-is-killing-the-planet-but-we-can-stop-it/
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

@xris
These top GHG emitters are rather fascinating.
Chocolate emissions are not limited to the dairy piece, Land Use Change is a huge part of its outsized impact.

“global warming potential [of chocolates] are very sensitive to land-use change associated with cocoa production, increasing the impact of chocolate products by a three to four times if LUC is involved.”

https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/files/65560111/Environmental_impacts_of_chocolates.pdf

Of course, pastures have been cleared for millennia, too. Need to dig in to LULC literature.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

That’s going to stop permafrost thawing? (IPCC sponsored by fossils.) Any word on ANY action? Such as methane eating bacteria? Or any feasible idea? El Niño will Jack up land temperature fast. IPCC needs to report real news. It’s failing. 🆘🌎🔥😳
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Great chart! I’d like to see this by serving size as well. A serving of beef weighs more than a serving of coffee beans, for example…
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

If this data is regarded as correct, then our systems of government should be directing us away from beef consumption. But these systems seem incapable of such social movement. It's time for a new way.

#tiereddemocraticgovernance
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

clearly need to start drinking 1 glass of wine in the morning instead of milk .... for the environment right
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

“You can keep your truth. We like our money.” These violent delights have violent ends.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

#Coffee is also a lot more than expected. Maybe I should ask my employer to give us #wine instead. Should be interesting...

Jokes aside, this is another example of the awful cynicism that seems to rule most of the world.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

it’s the rye bread and white wine diet for me from now on.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I'd like to know what percent of overall emissions all food products contribute to climate change. Then there could be a plan with specific goals and benchmarks.
in reply to Steven 📸

@sdosremedios Local doesn’t necessarily mean more sustainable. Impact depends on what it is, where in the world it’s produced & how it’s grown or raised.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I agree but while shopping it's pretty likely that the farmers market products don't come very far. Unlike Chilean salmon and Mexican raspberries and avocados. It's so hard to research everything we consume.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Content warning: Local food is structurally more sustainable

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

being vegan has gotten a lot more convenient and a bit more affordable. Basically relearning to cook sorta sucks but I mean I guess it's "fun"

If animal agriculture wasn't massively subsidized, (plant-based) food would be cheaper. Land would be cheaper, too
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I'm just happy that tofu is so far down the list. Tastes even better now!
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Damn, I am a bad person; I like and consume several of the items at or near the top of that list! My apologies to the world and its future generations!
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

So what's happening is national delegations to the IPCC are swapping tit-for-tat parochial interests and the whole process becomes a sausage factory grinding down environmental interests in the teeth of national ones?
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

This is good to be reminded of! It's why we only eat beef 2-3x / year. But I hope nobody reading this misses that it's part of a larger issue:

In 2020, assuming the beef cattle rate in the graphic, all the beef we ate worldwide produced just shy of 6 million metric tons of emissions. The same year, a single energy company, Vistra Energy, produced over 95 million tons.* _Corporations_ must also be held to account! It's not all (or even mostly) consumers' fault.

* https://peri.umass.edu/greenhouse-100-polluters-index-current
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

It would be useful to know emissions by caloric density. Not denying beef is particularly damaging.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

What I never understand is *how* the meat industry accomplished this. I can imagine they can spend a lot on lobby, but why would the IPCC listen to such a lobby? Which leverage do they have?
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

“plant-based diets can reduce GHG emissions by up to 50% compared to the average emission-intensive Western diet,”... Here's what I don't see discussed, what exactly are they defining as "Western diet"? The Standard American/Western Diet is based substantially on highly processed "foods" that contribute God knows what to global warming. Maybe a better approach, instead of forcing ppl to be vegetarian, would be to encourage them to "Eat Real (Whole) Food" not processed.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Good graphic, but it would also be nice to see this graphed on a per-serving basis. 1kg beef is ~10 servings, so ~10kg greenhouse gases per serving; 1kg coffee beans is ~120 servings, so ~0.2kg greenhouse gases per serving. I.e., beef causes much greater harm relative to coffee than this graphic implies.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

And I was just about to eat a piece of very dark chocolate. Help!
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

agriculture is the fifth largest producer of greenhouse gases according to the EPA. Beef is far from the most pressing issue for climate change. This is typical oil industry distraction tactics. Decarbonization of transportation and electric production is a far more important issue than beef, especially since production of fake meat alternatives is an energy intensive process.

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.