
Emissions from 13 dairy firms match those of entire UK - perfunctory
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/15/emissions-from-13-dairy-firms-match-those-of-entire-uk-says-report
======
credit_guy
This is factually incorrect, and the linked study [1] does not make this
claim. In the study, the quoted 2017 level of CO2-equivalent emissions by the
top 13 dairy firms is 337 MT. During the same year 2017, the UK emitted 464 MT
CO2-e [2], which is about 38% more.

Now, if you want to compare these top 13 firms and see which country they
exceed, you can sort all the countries and go down the list until you find one
that emits less than the 337 MT. [3] is just such a list. You find that these
firms emit just slightly less than Spain (340 MT) but much more than the
Netherlands (193 MT).

[1][https://www.iatp.org/milking-planet](https://www.iatp.org/milking-planet)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org)
/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_Kingdom

[3][https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AIR_GHG](https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AIR_GHG)

~~~
perfunctory
"match", in fact, can mean "similar", not necessarily "exactly equal".

------
nielsbot
Maybe this would help: "Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas
emissions from their burps, research finds"

[https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cows-seaweed-
metha...](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cows-seaweed-methane-
burps-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change-research-a8368911.html)

Wonder if it affects the taste of the meat or milk... or has some other
undesirable side effects?

~~~
aerostable_slug
There's a large amount of literature on the effects of diet on meat flavor.
I'm much more familiar with that side of things than milk flavor, but
anecdotally I would expect similar effects.

Re: not consuming dairy, you be you. Cheese is rad. Good
beef/pork/lamb/rabbit/etc. is rad. I think it's entirely possible to produce
them in a sustainable and humane fashion, since I've personally been involved
in producing beef that way (registered black angus FTW). My moo-cows had happy
lives until their end. I think that's an attainable goal and compatible with
also enjoying a wonderful tri-tip cooked with oak wood.

------
makerofspoons
Drawdown is one of the most comprehensive and well-sourced books about solving
anthropocentric climate change. If this article alarms you, in their technical
report they lay out how switching to a plant-based diet is one of the most
effective ways you can decrease your ecologial footprint:
[https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/plant-rich-
diets](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/plant-rich-diets)

------
nmeofthestate
>The analysis shows the impact of the 13 firms on the climate crisis is
growing, with an 11% increase in emissions in the two years after the 2015
Paris climate change agreement,

Okay.

>largely due to consolidation in the sector.

 _Record scratch_

------
stubish
Does anyone know if any of the artificial food research tackling a cows milk
substitute?

Oh, wait, I have a Google.
[https://www.sciencealert.com/news/20142910-26413.html](https://www.sciencealert.com/news/20142910-26413.html)
is a six year old press release, so I guess it didn't get to market 'in five
years'. It would be good if they could get something that could be made into
cheese, or skip the wasteful bits and go straight to cheese. All I hear about
is burgers, but I would have naively assumed milk a much simpler goal.

~~~
jamil7
No idea about cheese, somebody is probably working on it. I would make a guess
that the market for artificial milk is not worth the investment for most
businesses, vegans, vegetarians and plant-based people moved on to plant milks
and I think they're here to stay. There is a Swedish producer making high fat
oat milk which apparently works really for coffee foam. My perspective is the
question of whether or not plant milk vs cow milk is nutritionally equal
doesn't matter since cow milk is not really required in modern society. It's
an incredibly calorie and fat rich product that's intended for a developing
calf, it was useful for humans living in harsh, winter conditions prior to
industrialized farming but we can make up those calories elsewhere now.

~~~
stubish
Nutritionally, cheese is interesting due to the calcium content and vitamin K
needed to absorb it rather than calorie content. And requires large amounts of
cow (& sheep & goat) milk to create it. If artificial milk was possible, it
could be made by traditional processes into the traditional cheeses we use for
our varied cuisines. Direct artificial cheese I imagine would only get to
market in one or two varieties (likely American cheese slices for artificial
cheese burgers, or Parmesan for seasoning pasta).

~~~
jamil7
It's a good point but I don't personally believe there are many modern humans
outside of some small communitues that actually need to eat cheese for it's
nutritional value. That said I understand it's often one of the harder things
for people to give up when transitioning to plant-based diets.

~~~
aerostable_slug
Why does "need" have anything to do with one's diet? Cheese can be sustainably
produced, and as an aside it tastes fabulous (I encourage you to try it).

I have zero intention to transition to a plant-only diet (we almost all
already have "plant-based" diets, that term is offensively transparent
marketing hand-waving for "vegetarian"). However, I certainly don't look down
upon anyone for their individual dietary choices.

~~~
jamil7
I don't really care for that term either but I used it because "vegan" has
become such a loaded term in these kind of online debates, probably due to it
often coming from the animal welfare angle and all sorts of silly hypothetical
questions being offered from both sides. As for the cheese, I'll pass, you can
keep it.

------
OnlyOneCannolo
> The biggest dairy companies in the world have the same combined greenhouse
> gas emissions as the UK, the sixth biggest economy in the world

The biggest dairy companies in the world presumably feed a lot of people. The
UK is less than 1% of the world's population. Economy rank doesn't matter on
its own. This is an obviously disingenuous comparison.

> More than 90% of the corporate dairy industries’ emissions are produced by
> the cows themselves, mostly in the form of methane.

So we're worried that too many cows are breathing?

> Research shows all plant-based milks, such as soya and oat, result in far
> fewer emissions than dairy milk.

And there it is. It's a hit piece.

Most dairy isn't consumed as milk. You can't make cheese or cream from a
plant. Dairy is a big part of my diet, and I'm not replacing it with something
that isn't even nutritionally equivalent.

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
> So we're worried that too many cows are breathing?

No, farting.

> And there it is. It's a hit piece.

You’re not objecting to any of the facts of the article. Nor, presumably, to
the general idea of climate change. So I’m having trouble seeing your viscous
reaction to the article as anything but anger at being shown facts that paint
your lifestyle in a bad light.

FWIW I also consume dairy and meat, and don’t plan on stopping, either. And
yet I can’t fathom the anger this seems to invoke in you. Pointing out the
relative costs to society of certain activities isn’t necessarily intended to
get people to stop doing them. Here, for example, I believe putting pressure
on the industry to mitigate that pesky methane problem is the far more
promising route.

~~~
OnlyOneCannolo
The methane comes mostly from burping. [1]

I objected to how the article draws misleading comparisons amd I gave two
examples - how the scale of emissions is distorted, and how offering up milk
substitutes as an alternative ignores how most dairy is actually used. I think
that's enough to convey my point without a line-by-line breakdown of the
entire article.

I do like that they pointed out that consolidation has driven up demand, and
at the cost of rural businesses and communities. But it's overshadowed by the
rest of the article. For example, the grain alternative would just make
consolidation worse.

This isn't about me wanting to drink milk, eat meat, and ignore climate
change. It's about how we're replacing our traditional distributed and varied
food supply with corporate monoculture.

The article is written with such a heavy bias (intentional or not) that it
seems more like an opinion piece. I'm not angry. I'm just disappointed in the
journalism.

[1]
[http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1734](http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1734)

------
gandalfian
Planet wide dairy companies. Not just UK based. Are cows not carbon neutral?
Grass grows sucking in carbon, cows eat grass?

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
Cows produce (literally: fart) a lot of methane, which is an incredibly potent
driver of global warming. A lot of energy also goes into the whole chain of
production, from fertilizer used on feedstocks to transportation and so on.

Even compared just to other meats, beef is terrible for the climate. IIRC,
pork does less than 1/3 the damage, and chicken gets close to vegetables on
this measure

~~~
perfunctory
> Cows produce (literally: fart) a lot of methane

Excuse me my nitpicking, but cows mostly belch.

[https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-
so...](https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow-
belching-or-cow-flatulence/)

