Methane, Money & Metrics: Inside Big Ag’s Plan To Hide Its Climate Impact In South America

Generated Summary

This document investigates the livestock industry’s efforts to manipulate methane emission measurements in South America, focusing on the adoption of the Global Warming Potential Star (GWP*) metric. The study examines the influence of researcher Frank Mitloehner and his connections to agribusiness, revealing a coordinated plan to alter climate policies in Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina. The methodology involves analyzing documents, photos, and videos to expose how GWP* could allow large livestock companies to increase pollution while claiming to mitigate climate change. The scope covers the strategies used to promote GWP*, the financial backing behind these efforts, and the potential implications for climate change commitments.

Key Findings & Statistics

• Nearly 300 million cows belch millions of tons of methane between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
• Mitloehner’s research center received nearly $3 million from a foundation linked to JBS, Cargill, and Tyson Foods.
• Mitloehner also received $9,500 in public funds from Uruguay to advise the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture.
• Methane traps heat on the planet about 80 times more effectively than carbon dioxide.
• The GWP* metric has already been rejected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
• In 2024, Brazil’s livestock sector aims to continue reducing methane from its cows but at a much less ambitious pace than the new commitment.

Other Important Findings

• The livestock industry is pushing to change how its methane emissions are measured to change the impact of livestock farming.
• Frank Mitloehner, a researcher at the Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research (CLEAR) Center, is a key figure in promoting GWP*.
• Mitloehner has been traveling through South American countries, giving talks and advising governments.
• The GWP* metric, if adopted, could allow countries and multinationals to avoid responsibility for climate change.
• The campaign to promote GWP* is backed by significant financial resources from agribusiness.
• The adoption of GWP* could lead to increased methane emissions while appearing to meet climate commitments.
• The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Meat and the International Beef Alliance are linked to these efforts.
• The GWP* metric is being promoted at international events.
• The document highlights the role of the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) and its “educational” organization in these efforts.
• The work of the CLEAR Center is aligned with the goal of sharing the message of animal agriculture’s role as a solution provider in efforts to deal with climate change issues.
• The government of Paraguay made an open defense of the livestock industry by officially protesting against the inclusion of methane reduction targets in the final COP28 agreement.

Limitations Noted in the Document

• The document does not provide detailed analysis of the scientific validity of GWP*.
• It primarily focuses on the political and economic aspects of promoting GWP*.
• The specific methodologies used in the original research are not detailed.
• The document doesn’t cover the broader implications of the GWP* metric.
• The document’s reliance on specific sources limits its scope.
• The document does not cover the specific climate change impacts of methane.

Conclusion

The investigation reveals a strategic effort by the livestock industry, spearheaded by Frank Mitloehner, to influence climate policies in South America. The promotion of the GWP* metric is central to this strategy, potentially allowing increased methane emissions while appearing to align with climate goals. Key stakeholders, including major meat producers, and industry associations, are financially supporting this initiative. The document underscores the risk of the GWP* metric being used as a “scientific trick” to claim carbon neutrality despite ongoing emissions. The document highlights that the new metric does not capture the contribution to warming that each methane emission makes. This work shows how the livestock sector is seeking to reshape the narrative surrounding methane emissions and climate change. The document suggests that changes to the way emissions are calculated might be adopted in various nations, with potentially disastrous outcomes, if the metric is widely adopted. While the exact impact of these changes will unfold, the findings indicate a critical need for heightened scrutiny. It underscores a call for increased transparency and accountability within the livestock industry and the urgent need for accurate measurement in addressing climate change.