California’s climate targets for agriculture are some of the most ambitious in the world. Fortunately, by incentivizing the adoption of new technologies on farms, we can meet these goals.
Political leaders, industry workers, activists and academics gathered in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates recently for the United Nations’ annual climate change conference – COP28 – an event where big climate ideas were championed, and smaller ones were reinforced.
There’s a lot of debate about the metrics used to quantify methane, a potent greenhouse gas, with GWP* often at the center of the arguments. Heated discussions arise over the fact that GWP* may be scientifically correct but nevertheless unfair to use. To be fair, there’s quite a bit to unravel.
My job gives me the opportunity to travel around the world, and that never gets old for me. However, some journeys are exceptionally memorable and fruitful, managing to stand out among so many other worthwhile engagements that I’m privileged to be part of.
Q: What do you get when you bring together representatives from the federal government, California’s regulatory agencies, scientists from top research universities, the United Nations, the Environmental Defense Fund, industry representatives, and countless more organizations and individuals concerned with making animal agriculture more sustainable worldwide?
A: The first-of-its kind meeting to discuss workable climate solutions for ruminant livestock.
I’ve always thought of our path to climate neutrality as a journey. And like any sort of travel, there are starts and stops, detours, discoveries – and yes – even a wrong turn or two along the way. So, when I was invited to be part of a team of international scientists evaluating the effectiveness of GWP* in assessing the use of a new metric for methane under various case study conditions, I jumped at the chance to move along in this critically important journey.
There’s a shocking revelation out there, and I am at the heart of it. Are you prepared for this?
Animal scientists work with animal agriculture. That’s it. That’s the exposé, the conspiracy that so many activists and journalist want to share with you.
Oh, if you want more, try this on for size: Agriculturists work together to be more sustainable.
As the clock continues to wind down on irreversible climate change, it’s more important than ever to have all stakeholders involved and working toward a common goal. But when academic researchers partner with industry, eyebrows often are raised. That’s unfortunate and downright counterproductive.
Julia Child once said the best people are the ones who love to eat.
I think I know what the legendary chef was getting at. There’s so much more to food than nourishment. It feeds souls, it evokes memories, it upholds traditions, it’s part of most of life’s important moments. From milk and cookies to a seven-course gourmet meal, food can say “I love you” in no uncertain terms.
One might expect that a major breakthrough delivered by a well-respected organization – especially when the breakthrough seriously overrides a conclusion drawn merely two years earlier – to be backed by cold, hard facts. And yet, they are woefully absent from a Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) that calls unprocessed red meat an unconditional health risk.
Has the beef industry landed on a metric that finally gives it a rosy glow? Is a new system of measurement absolving the sector from much of the global warming blame it’s been shouldering? And if so, is it all too good to be true?
