WaPo finally posted a modest critique of meat industry greenwashing.
<💬>
Under another new California law, companies also must disclose the emissions created throughout their supply chains, and the Securities and Exchange Commission is working on a similar requirement.
It all has big food companies rushing to show progress in cutting emissions, particularly after so many of them promised to zero out their net release of greenhouse gases — known as going “carbon neutral” — by 2050 or earlier, in alignment with the Paris agreement on global warming. In the backdrop is a contentious debate over how those companies should calculate their carbon footprints.
The fight has shifted to an obscure independent organization called the GHG Protocol, a group made up of corporations, scientists and environmental groups that writes accounting rules for greenhouse gas emissions that will guide what climate claims companies can make under new state laws.
Among the companies involved in determining when and how farming and harvesting methods can be used to erase the emissions impact of products like hamburgers and dairy are McDonald’s, Nestlé and the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, to which meat giants Tyson Foods and Cargill belong.
The deliberations of the GHG Protocol, which is managed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, are kept confidential. But discord spilled into public in the fall, following its publication of draft guidelines for farm and forestry emissions. Dozens of environmental groups and academics say the rules as proposed would allow companies to declare climate-unfriendly products such as lumber, paper, beef and milk carbon neutral — or even carbon negative — by making modest land use adjustments that don’t truly mitigate the emissions of those products.
</💬>
There's certainly going to be more and more tension due to these corporations trying to find better greenwashing, better methods of faking data, more sophisticated bullshit.
A new study claims that global agriculture could become carbon-negative by 2050, removing more CO2 than it emits. The study explores various scenarios of dietary change and technological innovation that could achieve this goal. This would require a radical food system transformation involving all actors and sectors.
@mpoletiek would still not be #CarbonNegative but simply offset #Renewables, like outsorcing production to overseas (i.e. "P.R." #China and #India) just to reduce domestic industrial emissions...
I’m not anti-CO₂ removal (#CDR). I want CDR to work, and that’s why I push for decarbonization. Unless the world decarbonizes significantly (down to 10 to 15% of current emissions), CDR will be essentially useless.
@davidho you can't prioritize. We need to go #carbonnegative, choosing how is another job.
If you like politicizing, just go tell your opinions to Saudi, China, Russia... tell us if they listen
The federal government is preparing to pay companies to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, launching a first-of-its-kind program that could transform the market for the nascent climate technology
@peterdutoit yes I agree, but we must try: we're studying nuclear fusion (without tritium), we're pushing (maybe too) hard on hydrogen, we can't rule out CCS, because CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of climate change. We must take the effort to clean up. The energy for this work is the excess generation from renewables (competition with hydrogen). We must manage to go #carbonnegative and take CO2 down to 300 ppm. It took a century, it will take another one.
Earlier this week @ContraryLad shared a photo of his lovely #vegbox. Thanks for the idea 😀
We just got our vegbox delivered today. Ours comes from an #organic#crofter who crofts about 2 miles away from our house. One of the great things about his #croft is that he puts lots of effort on protecting/improving his #soil. Also, his croft is #CarbonNegative