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.”
"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
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
I feel simplistic comparisons like this are counterproductive.
It doesn't seem to take into account:
1. water content (A kilo of dry grain is a lot more food than a kilo of fresh veg, a kilo of cheese is a lot more food than a kilo of milk)
2. nutrient density and profile (a kilo of protein is more valuable than a kilo of carbs, some proteins are more valuable than others, also some fats are more healthy than others, also vitamin and mineral content)
3. variation in production methods. The same crop or animal can be grown in different ways with very differnt impacts. Is what is shown the industry standard (often worst) method? Or an average of all methods in use? What would the graphic look like if lowest carbon available methods were used and what non-carbon tradeoffs would apply?
Some people calculate that sheep meat is worse than beef. Is this feedlot beef or trad pastured beef or purely grass fed? Is it comparing feedlot beef with partially grass fed sheep?
4. Does it include packaging? Glass bottles and transport for wine for example add a lot on top of the basic cost of production.
It's weird that no green veg are listed. We do actually need to eat those. (but cf #3 & gas heated hothouses!)
Put all this together and it's so simplistic and challengeable that I don't feel it helps the case.
I already know that oats, soy and peanuts are amongst the best staples - but you have to have a lot of external knowledge to get that from this.
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.
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.
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.
Grazing ruminants can help sequester carbon. I won't provide links. You can do the research yourself. Some of us don't do well without meat. I tried being vegetarian for most of 20 years, and eating beef again was a revelation. No more brain fog, hypoglycemia, and PMS. When I was pregnant I craved beef and tofu made me gag. I refuse to demonize a vital part of my diet.
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.
George Monbiot's terrifying new book tells us that farming is the most destructive human activity there has ever been. Luckily, it also offers radical solutions
@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.”
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. 🆘🌎🔥😳
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.
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.
@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.
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.
Although local food does not mean always lower emissions (take e.g. fossil fuel heated greenhouses growing tomatoes in winter), there is an important effect that is overlooked when only taking the direct measurable emissions into account.
-> the degree of direct relation to production and community control over the food system
When it is local, you can go to visit the farmer, build trust, come to an agreement with them, build trust on the basis of mutual interests and facilitate direct marketing channels. Plus, you can push for reasonable agricultural policies on the regional level etc.
With global supply chains this is simply not possible. You need giant, inefficient, expensive bureaucratic mechanisms to influence food production systems on the other side of the world. With market incentivizing fraud, distrust makes you even think that blockchain or other tech-fixes could be necessary because the system builds on distrust. Local food systems limit the possibilities of agribusiness lobbying.
This is the real added value of buying local. You become responsible of what happens in your backyard. If you don't care, at least it'll be your own local environment that gives you feedback of your poor choices.
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!
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?
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
MárciaW
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Zolan Quobble
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •🇵🇸 damaged gods 🇺🇦
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Stephanie Jane
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •xenogon
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Content warning: long, contrary
It doesn't seem to take into account:
1. water content (A kilo of dry grain is a lot more food than a kilo of fresh veg, a kilo of cheese is a lot more food than a kilo of milk)
2. nutrient density and profile (a kilo of protein is more valuable than a kilo of carbs, some proteins are more valuable than others, also some fats are more healthy than others, also vitamin and mineral content)
3. variation in production methods. The same crop or animal can be grown in different ways with very differnt impacts. Is what is shown the industry standard (often worst) method? Or an average of all methods in use? What would the graphic look like if lowest carbon available methods were used and what non-carbon tradeoffs would apply?
Some people calculate that sheep meat is worse than beef. Is this feedlot beef or trad pastured beef or purely grass fed? Is it comparing feedlot beef with partially grass fed sheep?
4. Does it include packaging? Glass bottles and transport for wine for example add a lot on top of the basic cost of production.
It's weird that no green veg are listed. We do actually need to eat those. (but cf #3 & gas heated hothouses!)
Put all this together and it's so simplistic and challengeable that I don't feel it helps the case.
I already know that oats, soy and peanuts are amongst the best staples - but you have to have a lot of external knowledge to get that from this.
dr 🛠️🛰️📡🎧:blobfoxcomputer:
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Weird how running billions of tiny methane factories all over the world is creating greenhouse gasses.
Animal Lover
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Greed/ignorance/politics/normalcy bias
Kévin
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •mbpaz
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •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.
C.S.Strowbridge
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •NotReadyForThis
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •greenPAl00ka 🏳🌈
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Mikey McFilms
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Rpsu (326 ppm)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Queen Chinee
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •I won't provide links. You can do the research yourself.
Some of us don't do well without meat.
I tried being vegetarian for most of 20 years, and eating beef again was a revelation. No more brain fog, hypoglycemia, and PMS.
When I was pregnant I craved beef and tofu made me gag.
I refuse to demonize a vital part of my diet.
Chris Wood
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •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/
Regenesis review: Farming is killing the planet but we can stop it
Rowan Hooper (New Scientist)legraLeGra
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •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.
Martin Rundkvist
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Molly Cantrell-Kraig ✅
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •#climate #vegan #plantBased #greed #ClimateChange
Kris Samsel
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Formerly disgruntled in Oregon
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Dave Volek
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •#tiereddemocraticgovernance
Gau
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •stevenray
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •. stdh .
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Jokes aside, this is another example of the awful cynicism that seems to rule most of the world.
Jonathan
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Ged|Net
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Steven 📸
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Sheril Kirshenbaum
in reply to Steven 📸 • • •Steven 📸
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Earthworm
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Content warning: Local food is structurally more sustainable
Although local food does not mean always lower emissions (take e.g. fossil fuel heated greenhouses growing tomatoes in winter), there is an important effect that is overlooked when only taking the direct measurable emissions into account.
-> the degree of direct relation to production and community control over the food system
When it is local, you can go to visit the farmer, build trust, come to an agreement with them, build trust on the basis of mutual interests and facilitate direct marketing channels. Plus, you can push for reasonable agricultural policies on the regional level etc.
With global supply chains this is simply not possible. You need giant, inefficient, expensive bureaucratic mechanisms to influence food production systems on the other side of the world.
With market incentivizing fraud, distrust makes you even think that blockchain or other tech-fixes could be necessary because the system builds on distrust.
Local food systems limit the possibilities of agribusiness lobbying.
This is the real added value of buying local. You become responsible of what happens in your backyard. If you don't care, at least it'll be your own local environment that gives you feedback of your poor choices.
Local rules🧑🌾
Cykonot
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •If animal agriculture wasn't massively subsidized, (plant-based) food would be cheaper. Land would be cheaper, too
Johan 🚴🧗🏃
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Sonictroubadour
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •josh buermann
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •InsaneAwesomeTony
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Doctor LURK
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •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
Greenhouse 100 Polluters Index: (2022 Report, Based on 2020 Data)
PERIBen Anderson
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •We Want EVERYTHING! 🌹
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Graham Palmer
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Erwin Rossen
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Elizabeth
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Mark
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •LiverpoolWiz
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Noe 🐝✨
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •@joachim
Ryan DeShone
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •