Generated Summary
This report investigates how the livestock industry in South America is influencing climate policies to downplay its contribution to climate change. The study focuses on the industry’s use of a new metric, the Global Warming Potential Star (GWP*), promoted by figures like Frank Mitloehner, to potentially reduce the perceived impact of livestock farming on methane emissions. The research explores how this metric could allow the industry to avoid responsibility for climate change by potentially offsetting emissions and claiming alignment with climate goals. The methodology involves analyzing documents, photos, videos, and contracts to understand the strategies employed by the industry and its advocates across Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil. The scope includes examining the roles of key actors, including industry groups, researchers, and government officials, in shaping these policies. The study aims to reveal how the livestock industry seeks to influence the calculation of methane emissions to protect its interests amid growing concerns about climate change.
Key Findings & Statistics
- Nearly 300 million cows in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay belch millions of tons of methane.
- Methane is 80 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide over a 12-year period.
- Mitloehner received $9,500 dollars from the Uruguayan state through the National Meat Institute (INAC).
- Mitloehner received $3 million dollars in direct funding from the international livestock industry between 2018 and 2023.
- Mitloehner received more than $12 million dollars in his career.
- The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) represents more than 175,000 U.S. cattle producers and admitted after COP26 its lobbying efforts in Congress for the adoption of GWP*.
Other Important Findings
- The livestock industry is attempting to influence how methane emissions are calculated to minimize its perceived impact on climate change.
- Frank Mitloehner, a researcher, is a key figure in promoting the GWP* metric, which the industry hopes will lessen its responsibility for climate change.
- The GWP* metric has been rejected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
- The adoption of GWP* could allow livestock farming to reduce their ambition or even increase their methane emissions while claiming to be in line with their governments’ climate commitments.
- Mitloehner’s influence extends across several South American countries, including Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil, and his activities are often supported by industry groups and government entities.
- The GWP* metric is promoted as a way to account for the short lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, but critics argue that it allows the industry to continue emitting large amounts of methane.
- The use of GWP* is seen as a tactic to distract from significant methane emissions and avoid action to reduce them.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The document does not provide detailed methodologies on how data was collected or analyzed, or how the GWP* metric works in detail.
- The study relies on accessing contracts and documents, which might not represent the full scope of the industry’s activities.
- The focus on specific actors and countries might not fully represent the global scale of the issue.
- The report primarily focuses on the perspective of those critical of the livestock industry’s practices.
- The study acknowledges that the GWP* metric is not universally accepted, and may not be representative of all scientific viewpoints.
Conclusion
The findings reveal a concerted effort by the livestock industry to reshape the narrative around its environmental impact, particularly concerning methane emissions. The industry’s promotion of the GWP* metric represents a strategic move to potentially reduce its perceived contribution to climate change, allowing it to continue with business as usual. The use of GWP* is portrayed as a means to reconcile the industry with climate goals while avoiding substantial reductions in emissions. However, this approach is fraught with risks, as it could undermine the urgency of climate action and allow the industry to evade accountability. As the document emphasizes, the reliance on GWP* could lead to a scenario where the livestock sector can avoid facing the full extent of its impact. The study suggests that the GWP* metric is not about genuine climate action; instead, it is about creating a perception of progress that does not match the reality of continued high emissions. This raises serious questions about the integrity of climate policies. The livestock industry’s efforts reflect a broader trend of delaying meaningful change. The study highlights the need for more stringent regulations and increased transparency. The report’s conclusion points to the need for a fundamental shift in how the livestock industry operates, including the adoption of more sustainable practices and a willingness to take full responsibility for its environmental impact.