'Climate-Friendly' Meat Is a Myth
'Climate-Friendly' Meat Is a Myth
Tyson's USDA-endorsed "climate-friendly" beef may be more greenwashing than planet-saving solution.
For anyone who doesn't read the article but gets upset at the title because climate friendly meat actually exist. It's about a new label for meat that says "Environmental Friendly". Similar to the certificate for "Organic" or "GMO-FREE".
And the certificate is bullshit. Even in it's strictest form you only need a 10% reduction in CO2 production to the industry standard to qualify. Which is nothing.
But it gets worse, the rating is done by third party companies who have leeway in setting the industry standard. One company even has the industry standard set higher than the actual industry average.
So overall the certificate is bullshit that makes people feel better but doesn't actually do anything.
Oh, so exactly like the "organic" or "GMO-free" labels.
Does climate friendly meat actually exist? I don't really understand how, at least not at the volume people eat meat today.
Of course it exists. There is venison and other wild hunted meat. In many places these animals have to be shot anyhow for population control. Overhunting would be the only issue here.
Then there are purely pasture fed animals. Especially with goats this is common . But there are also some cattle and pig farms. As long as the land itself wasn't deforested and is given enough time to repair itself, it's perfectly sustainable.
Then there are things like keeping chicken in your garden that are only fed kitchen scraps. Depending on your household size you can even keep 1-2 pigs that way.
If any of these options are available to you, they can be more environmental friendly than some plant based foods. Locally sourced version is definitely better than having plants shipped across the globe.
As you said the only issue is the quantity and also the desire for premium cuts. A lot of meat is currently wasted because it's "undesirable". Some parts will find their way into animal food but a lot also just gets thrown away.
Thanks, indeed the title is misleasding (as best)
Sounds like when they tried pushing "clean coal"
This is the best summary I could come up with:
If that measurement is at least 10% lower than an industry benchmark set by the auditing company for emissions, the producer gets USDA approval to label their products “climate-friendly” and use related language in packaging and marketing.
Matthew Hayek, assistant professor of environmental studies at New York University, points out that this means that even products with higher-than-average emissions outputs will qualify for the “climate-friendly” label.
On top of that, the third-party verification process isn’t as rigorous as it sounds—it runs on the honor system, allowing companies to report their own calculations, as if there were no obvious conflict of interest.
Some of the richest ecosystems on the planet are consistently wiped out to make room for cattle operations; livestock farming is a known threat to biodiversity and a cause of species extinction.
It’s unsurprising that an industry would spin the truth to position itself as being on the right side of the climate crisis, but it’s a little galling that a government agency would not just allow this, but facilitate it.
The truth is that anyone who is legitimately interested in lowering their environmental impact should cut back on or skip beef altogether, opting instead for plant foods like fruits, grains, vegetables, and legumes.
The original article contains 1,164 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!