Not that members of the Cult of Climastrology will give up any of the three, but, it gives them good talking points. Perhaps we can get some Warmist cities and counties to sue
In 2017, GRAIN, an international non-profit that conducts independent research and works to support small farmers, used methodology created by the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to estimate the emissions produced by livestock. This was the first time that these emissions had ever been measured, and the study revealed some not-so-pretty statistics. Take, for instance, the fact that JBS, Cargill, and Tyson, three top meat companies, emitted more greenhouse gases in 2016 than all of France, plus nearly as much as oil giants like Exxon, Shell, and BP.
A year after that groundbreaking study, GRAIN has once again set out to bring to light the true impact of big meat and dairy on our planet. This time, the organization teamed up with another non-profit, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). Together, GRAIN and IATP conducted an analysis of the world’s 35 top-producing meat and dairy corporations. Here’s what they found:
- The top five meat and dairy companies have now officially surpassed Exxon, Shell, and BP in annual greenhouse gas emissions.
- With only four of the 35 giving complete and credible emissions estimates, the majority of the top meat and dairy producers either underreport or do not report their emissions.
- In order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, we must cut down on global emissions by 38 billion tons. But if meat and dairy continue to grow as experts predict, the livestock industry could produce 80 percent of the allowable greenhouse gas emissions quota in just 32 years.
These eye-opening statistics show just how bad things really are and point to an urgent need for a solution. As GRAIN researcher Devlin Kuyek put it, “There’s no other choice. Meat and dairy production in the countries where the top 35 companies dominate must be significantly reduced.â€
Well, that’s a bummer. Come on, Warmists, stop eating meat, give up dairy, and stop using fossil fueled vehicles. They won’t.
Really, though, this has been known for a long time, going back to the early days when it was called man-caused global warming. We knew that agriculture, along with landfills, was much worse in terms of greenhouse gas release than pretty much anything else mankind was involved in. But, see, methane wasn’t as sexy as “carbon pollution,” because of all the jokes about farts. And, early stage Warmists didn’t want to appear to be total cranks by recommending that government reduce the availability of food.
Read: Good News: Meat And Dairy Companies Are Worse Than Fossil Fuel Companies »
In 2017,Â
The science ofÂ
House Democrats revealed their new slogan for the upcoming 2018 elections, but whoever was behind it probably forgot to check that it’s identical to the one used by a used car dealership in Texas and a personal injury law firm in Florida.
Want to get a whole bunch of people to really, really care about climate change and rising sea levels? Tell them their internet is at risk.
Anyone who pays much attention to climate change knows the outlook is grim. It’s not unreasonable to say that the challenge we face today is the greatest the human species has ever confronted (yes, it is unreasonable. And crazy). And anyone who pays much attention to politics can assume we’re almost certainly going to botch it. To stop emitting waste carbon completely within the next five or 10 years, we would need to radically reorient almost all human economic and social production, a task that’s scarcely imaginable, much less feasible. It would demand centralized control of key economic sectors, enormous state investment in carbon capture and sequestration and global coordination on a scale never before seen, at the very time when the political and economic structures that held the capitalist world order together under American leadership after World War II are breaking apart. The very idea of unified national political action toward a single goal seems farcical, and unified action on a global scale mere whimsy.
Today, New York Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood and Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced a lawsuit to protect New York and its taxpayers from Washington’s drastic curtailment of the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction. The lawsuit argues that the new SALT cap was enacted to target New York and similarly situated states, that it interferes with states’ rights to make their own fiscal decisions, and that it will disproportionately harm taxpayers in these states. 


