Poore and Nemecek (2018) - erroneously cited by Monbiot

[Robin1966]

Both Damien Carrington and George Monbiot (more recently) have cited a study by Poore and Nemecek (2018) to justify the argument that we should all stop eating meat. The problem for both Guardian journalists is that the study itself does not necessarily support that conclusion. Here are some links guys that you might find interesting:

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/...o-be-vegans-in-the-pursuit-of-sustainability/
https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/claims-against-meat-fail-to-see-bigger-picture/
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...ed-reviews-from-scientists-damian-carrington/

 

[Cowgirl]

Surprise, surprise - it's amazing how many people quote references which they haven't even read....

 

[egbert]

Both Damien Carrington and George Monbiot (more recently) have cited a study by Poore and Nemecek (2018) to justify the argument that we should all stop eating meat. The problem for both Guardian journalists is that the study itself does not necessarily support that conclusion. Here are some links guys that you might find interesting:

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/...o-be-vegans-in-the-pursuit-of-sustainability/
https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/claims-against-meat-fail-to-see-bigger-picture/
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...ed-reviews-from-scientists-damian-carrington/

I'm pretty sure I've seen GM referencing stuff that doesn't stack up previously

 

[Raider112]

Every shouty vegan seems to post the link that says "avoiding meat is the biggest single thing you can do to save the planet" or something on those lines. If that can be shot down with a proper factual denial rather than just saying it's a load of bull that would be a great help. I always say if their argument is so sound why do they need to lie all the time.

 

[Robin1966]

Surprise, surprise - it's amazing how many people quote references which they haven't even read....

Yes but it's not just that. As I learnt at uni, a good researcher will actively hunt for other studies that critique the one you're intending to quote.

 

[Nearly]

To update the quote...
'George Monbiot uses references like a drunk uses a lamp post, more for support than for illumination.'

 

[Cab-over Pete]

Every shouty vegan seems to post the link that says "avoiding meat is the biggest single thing you can do to save the planet" or something on those lines. If that can be shot down with a proper factual denial rather than just saying it's a load of bull that would be a great help. I always say if their argument is so sound why do they need to lie all the time.

Conveniently avoiding the real issue that the actual biggest thing we can do is stop breeding.

Monbiot has done as much to harm the planet as anybody by having two children himself. I dare say he would counter that by saying “yes, but my wife and I have only had two so only replaced ourselves, therefore not making the situation any worse”, because that’s the kind of daft stuff they say to wriggle out of awkward questions.

When these self appointed dipsticks appear on tv dressed in nothing but cotton or hessian with wooden buttons and eating berries they’ve just found or veg they’ve grown themselves and only drinking water they’ve caught from the sky then I’ll start to listen to them....maybe. Until then, they should sharpen up their act and show us they lead the way in reversing climate change.

The saddest part of it is, much of what they say is correct. Backing it up with nonsense and half truths, incorrect quotations and exaggerated claims just lets us all justifiably swat them away like a bothersome fly.

Monbiot seems to have risen to the top of this bunch of idealists. Whilst his rise was fast and loud his voice is getting lost now. I’m not saying he will go away, far from it, and I dare say when ag policy changes to help the environment more than the good work already done he will claim he’s done a good job, but he’s only preaching to a bored congregation now. I think folks are getting fed up with a lot of what’s being said, and with USA, India, Russia and China forging on with huge industrial expansion they’re probably wondering if it’s worth bothering to change.

We already have one of the cleanest countries on earth so maybe these self appointed experts should take a plane flight (like they do) and start shouting at the real polluters.

 

[Robin1966]

Conveniently avoiding the real issue that the actual biggest thing we can do is stop breeding.

Monbiot has done as much to harm the planet as anybody by having two children himself. I dare say he would counter that by saying “yes, but my wife and I have only had two so only replaced ourselves, therefore not making the situation any worse”, because that’s the kind of daft stuff they say to wriggle out of awkward questions.

When these self appointed dipsticks appear on tv dressed in nothing but cotton or hessian with wooden buttons and eating berries they’ve just found or veg they’ve grown themselves and only drinking water they’ve caught from the sky then I’ll start to listen to them....maybe. Until then, they should sharpen up their act and show us they lead the way in reversing climate change.

The saddest part of it is, much of what they say is correct. Backing it up with nonsense and half truths, incorrect quotations and exaggerated claims just lets us all justifiably swat them away like a bothersome fly.

Monbiot seems to have risen to the top of this bunch of idealists. Whilst his rise was fast and loud his voice is getting lost now. I’m not saying he will go away, far from it, and I dare say when ag policy changes to help the environment more than the good work already done he will claim he’s done a good job, but he’s only preaching to a bored congregation now. I think folks are getting fed up with a lot of what’s being said, and with USA, India, Russia and China forging on with huge industrial expansion they’re probably wondering if it’s worth bothering to change.

We already have one of the cleanest countries on earth so maybe these self appointed experts should take a plane flight (like they do) and start shouting at the real polluters.

I think you're right. The annoying thing is that this vegan idealism BS adversely impacts on calmer and more considered journalists and environmentalists like myself. Monbiot was great when he was talking about energy, general lifestyle choices and various aspects of government policy, but more recently he discovered rewilding and veganism and that has now degenerated into a 'war on the farmer'. That's why I am now calling him out on it.

 

[Robin1966]

Here is something else that is encouraging, and folks I would seriously consider following @GHGGuru on Twitter.
Methane sinks appears to be something else that have not been fully considered by Poore and Nemecek (2018) and those who cite that study, such as George Monbiot and Damien Carrington.

 

[Robin1966]

There is also this that is worth a read: https://www.alltech.com/features-po...oehner-cattle-climate-change-and-methane-myth

 

[PSQ]

George Monbiot has simply sacrificed his scientific objectivity in order to create populist journalism.

His main source of income comes from £67,000 retainer from The Guardian, and they obviously expect some edgy 'journalism' for that kind of money, which George has been happy to supply. The problem is he ran out of 'edgy' when he announced to his readers that he was wrong to condemn nuclear power which caused a huge backlash that would appear to have set him on a course towards writing populist articles to please the crowd.

The beguiling thing is he's got as many faces as Big Ben. He flip flops from opinion to opinion with scant regard for any 'collateral damage' caused along the way. Prior to the panning by The Guardian readership over the 'nuclear story', he wrote an article presenting the case for ethical meat production in an article that shows that George can have a rational side: I Was Wrong About Veganism - But Farm It Properly. Then In 2013 he once more changed his mind: Why I'm Eating My Words on Veganism - Again where he decided to stick the knife back into Ag.

He doesn't have the depth of understanding to write objectively. In 1997 he wants to ban subsidies but then in 1999 he says the Min of Ag is trying to wipe out small farmers, completely unaware that subsidy removal would do that in a pen stroke. There's rather a lot of this behaviour, in fact here's his archive of 28 years worth flip flopping journalism from someone masquerading as an authority on farming (click).

Now he's sought out a new sycophantic audience on social media. Here he is on Twitter:

So, is the quote from George, or is it from the quoted FCRN report? Well it's not in the report, either verbatim or figuratively. The report is a scientific review of many other studies, not a wholesale condemnation of livestock farming as George Monbiot is trying his best to imply.

So, why does he do it?
Is it just riding the heady heights of being a populist outspoken 'figurehead' for a receptive urban audience?
Perhaps he was bullied (or worse) by a 'farmers son' at boarding school (Stowe), and is this his bitter revenge?
Maybe he actually *is* the pseudo scientific saviour of the planet, and re-hashing cherry picked evidence will reverse climate change...
- We'll never know.

 

[glasshouse]

I thought that old big ears flying by private jet to davos to lecture the plebs on saving the planet took the biscuit.

 

[Robin1966]

George Monbiot has simply sacrificed his scientific objectivity in order to create populist journalism.

His main source of income comes from £67,000 retainer from The Guardian, and they obviously expect some edgy 'journalism' for that kind of money, which George has been happy to supply. The problem is he ran out of 'edgy' when he announced to his readers that he was wrong to condemn nuclear power which caused a huge backlash that would appear to have set him on a course towards writing populist articles to please the crowd.

The beguiling thing is he's got as many faces as Big Ben. He flip flops from opinion to opinion with scant regard for any 'collateral damage' caused along the way. Prior to the panning by The Guardian readership over the 'nuclear story', he wrote an article presenting the case for ethical meat production in an article that shows that George can have a rational side: I Was Wrong About Veganism - But Farm It Properly. Then In 2013 he once more changed his mind: Why I'm Eating My Words on Veganism - Again where he decided to stick the knife back into Ag.

He doesn't have the depth of understanding to write objectively. In 1997 he wants to ban subsidies but then in 1999 he says the Min of Ag is trying to wipe out small farmers, completely unaware that subsidy removal would do that in a pen stroke. There's rather a lot of this behaviour, in fact here's his archive of 28 years worth flip flopping journalism from someone masquerading as an authority on farming (click).

Now he's sought out a new sycophantic audience on social media. Here he is on Twitter:

So, is the quote from George, or is it from the quoted FCRN report? Well it's not in the report, either verbatim or figuratively. The report is a scientific review of many other studies, not a wholesale condemnation of livestock farming as George Monbiot is trying his best to imply.

So, why does he do it?
Is it just riding the heady heights of being a populist outspoken 'figurehead' for a receptive urban audience?
Perhaps he was bullied (or worse) by a 'farmers son' at boarding school (Stowe), and is this his bitter revenge?
Maybe he actually *is* the pseudo scientific saviour of the planet, and re-hashing cherry picked evidence will reverse climate change...
- We'll never know.

That's a very, very, good assessment. I've long considered George as an old friend of mine, as we were both anti-road protesters at Solsbury Hill, Bath, in 1994. But it pains me to see the direction he's gone in, and I especially can't accept deliberate omissions of evidence, his apparent 'war on the farmer' and his apparent neglect or even avoidance of talking to farmers. It seems he chooses to talk at farmers instead. All this goes against my notions of what good journalism should be. Therefore, on this issue particularly, I choose to stand in opposition to him.

 

[Bogweevil]

Both Damien Carrington and George Monbiot (more recently) have cited a study by Poore and Nemecek (2018) to justify the argument that we should all stop eating meat. The problem for both Guardian journalists is that the study itself does not necessarily support that conclusion. Here are some links guys that you might find interesting:

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/...o-be-vegans-in-the-pursuit-of-sustainability/
https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/claims-against-meat-fail-to-see-bigger-picture/
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...ed-reviews-from-scientists-damian-carrington/

Dude, these are secondary sources - see the original:

Abstract
Food’s environmental impacts are created by millions of diverse producers. To identify solutions that are effective under this heterogeneity, we consolidated data covering five environmental indicators; 38,700 farms; and 1600 processors, packaging types, and retailers. Impact can vary 50-fold among producers of the same product, creating substantial mitigation opportunities. However, mitigation is complicated by trade-offs, multiple ways for producers to achieve low impacts, and interactions throughout the supply chain. Producers have limits on how far they can reduce impacts. Most strikingly, impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change. Cumulatively, our findings support an approach where producers monitor their own impacts, flexibly meet environmental targets by choosing from multiple practices, and communicate their impacts to consumers.

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

Erratum https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6429/eaaw9908

 

[Robin1966]

Yes, it says importance of dietary change, that doesn't mean absolutely everyone on the planet should become vegan though.

 

[Jungle Bill]

Walter Jehne’s paper on methane is worth a read https://bestenvirotech.com.au/docs/FDI methane Jehne.docx

 

[Jackov Altraids]

I

Dude, these are secondary sources - see the original:

Abstract
Food’s environmental impacts are created by millions of diverse producers. To identify solutions that are effective under this heterogeneity, we consolidated data covering five environmental indicators; 38,700 farms; and 1600 processors, packaging types, and retailers. Impact can vary 50-fold among producers of the same product, creating substantial mitigation opportunities. However, mitigation is complicated by trade-offs, multiple ways for producers to achieve low impacts, and interactions throughout the supply chain. Producers have limits on how far they can reduce impacts. Most strikingly, impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change. Cumulatively, our findings support an approach where producers monitor their own impacts, flexibly meet environmental targets by choosing from multiple practices, and communicate their impacts to consumers.

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

Erratum https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6429/eaaw9908

Having only had a tertiary glance at the links, they have spent a huge amount of time and effort to conclude that the carbon footprint of a plant that converts carbon dioxide to oxygen is better than an animal breathing in oxygen and emitting carbon dioxide.
It is not the act of eating an animal that has the environmental impact as much as its existence.
1 ewe can easily produce 30 kg's of lamb, 2 skins and 3 fleeces in a year while maintaining an environmentally important habitat with just sun and rain. What is the true environmental cost to supplying all the alternatives?

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Dude, these are secondary sources - see the original:

Abstract
Food’s environmental impacts are created by millions of diverse producers. To identify solutions that are effective under this heterogeneity, we consolidated data covering five environmental indicators; 38,700 farms; and 1600 processors, packaging types, and retailers. Impact can vary 50-fold among producers of the same product, creating substantial mitigation opportunities. However, mitigation is complicated by trade-offs, multiple ways for producers to achieve low impacts, and interactions throughout the supply chain. Producers have limits on how far they can reduce impacts. Most strikingly, impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change. Cumulatively, our findings support an approach where producers monitor their own impacts, flexibly meet environmental targets by choosing from multiple practices, and communicate their impacts to consumers.

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

Erratum https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6429/eaaw9908

The trouble with their "report" is that once you get right down into their methodology you find huge bias:
- They applied a full LCA including all emissions associated with all inputs to meat products but only applied emissions at point of use to food crops
- They ignored evidence of carbon sequestration in grazing systems
- They excluded regenerative grazing systems as "unproven" despite increasing numbers of studies confirming they can actually deliver carbon negative production
- They ignore their own colleagues work (Myles Allen et. al. at Oxford Martin Climate School) clearly demonstrating that GWP100 is inappropriate to compare methane emissions to CO2 or N2O emissions.

As a result their quoted range of emissions for ruminant meats is far too narrow. Some beef systems ARE high impact and should change.

They also conveniently ignore the other huge negative ecological impacts of many of the food crops they promote as low carbon.

Their report has been rightly heavily criticised for this by leading climate researchers yet, because it conveniently supports the anti-meat argument, it continues to be the "science" of choice of the anti-meat activists and media.

 

[Robin1966]

The trouble with their "report" is that once you get right down into their methodology you find huge bias:
- They applied a full LCA including all emissions associated with all inputs to meat products but only applied emissions at point of use to food crops
- They ignored evidence of carbon sequestration in grazing systems
- They excluded regenerative grazing systems as "unproven" despite increasing numbers of studies confirming they can actually deliver carbon negative production
- They ignore their own colleagues work (Myles Allen et. al. at Oxford Martin Climate School) clearly demonstrating that GWP100 is inappropriate to compare methane emissions to CO2 or N2O emissions.

As a result their quoted range of emissions for ruminant meats is far too narrow. Some beef systems ARE high impact and should change.

They also conveniently ignore the other huge negative ecological impacts of many of the food crops they promote as low carbon.

Their report has been rightly heavily criticised for this by leading climate researchers yet, because it conveniently supports the anti-meat argument, it continues to be the "science" of choice of the anti-meat activists and media.

Lovely stuff. That's an excellent response. ?

 

[Robin1966]

Walter Jehne’s paper on methane is worth a read https://bestenvirotech.com.au/docs/FDI methane Jehne.docx

Ye gods, only just read that. It's totally brilliant.