Read on Twitter
Is it me, or is nearly everyone except the narrator a bit more reasonable when it comes to the discussion of animal agriculture’s impact on the environment? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p091629v 1/
While @BBCNews acknowledges that UK beef produces 1/2 the emissions of the global avg, it does so only after using a dramatic graph showing GLOBAL emissions of beef compared to other foods. 2/
This blatant attempt to muddle the details leads to public confusion and is detrimental to potential climate solutions. This explainer breaks down why the difference between global and regional emissions matters. https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/using-global-emission-statistics-distracting-us-climate-change-solutions 3/
If you want a complete picture of how global emissions measure up by sector, this @OurWorldInData article sums it up nicely. For the record, the livestock sector makes up 14.5% of global GHG emissions & 5.8% direct GHGs. https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector 4/
The BBC also mentions the UK uses 48% of their land for grazing livestock, but fails to go deeper by explaining that most global agricultural land is marginal. This land is still productive thanks to livestock. Here's more on that: 5/
The story touches on the issue of emissions from food waste. Why state all the ways cattle are "bad" for the environment, but not the ways they are good for it? Cattle play a major role in keeping food waste out of the landfill. I've written about this: https://twitter.com/GHGGuru/status/1286834837014196225 6/
It's time to invite animal scientists, climate experts, food producers and others outside of the activist agenda into this conversation. The public deserves a holistic view of livestock's true impact on #climatechange. 7/7
