The United States is home to 95 million cattle, and changing what they eat could have a significant effect on emissions of greenhouse gases like methane that are warming the world.
The @nytclimate piece on cattle methane is textbook industry denial. I have no issue with highlighting that industry is making progress on one of their many problems. But they also downplay and deny the nature of the problem itself
Oh look! A fluff piece on the cattle industry in the NYT that reduces all its impacts to GHG emissions! It's almost as if ... focusing exclusively on carbon blinds us to other ecological, ethical, and political-economic impacts of harmful industries.
Cattle famously belch out tremendous amounts of methane — which contributes to global warming — so people are giving serious attention to what they're eating.
"Livestock are among the largest sources of methane, which can have 80 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide although it persists for less time." nytimes.com/2020/10/21/cli… #agresearch via @henryfountain
Really, @nytimes? 🧐 Framing industrial animal ag in a scientific bubble w/out mention of public health, rural livelihood, and animal welfare is so outdated. 1/2
“Their total contribution is dwarfed by the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, transportation and industry. But livestock are among the largest sources of methane, which can have 80 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide”
#LCA studies of #beef and #dairy repeatedly show cow-rearing is a major cause of #GHGs. Advocates should be aware of this #NYT article, which cites a USDA scientist who claims the U.S. cattle industry is “probably not adding #methane to the atmosphere.”