Talk:Livestock's Long Shadow

Incorrect section
The text

"The report has come in for criticism. In October 2008 after one of the contributing authors, Dr. Pierre Gerber, an FAO livestock policy officer admitted publicly the livestock emissions figure included emissions arising from deforestation and other land clearance measures.

Originally, the report claimed the world's livestock industry "generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2"[3] and "that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport."[4]

In October 2008, however, Dr. Pierre Gerber admitted to Glenn Tyrrell, the marketing manager of New Zealand meat company, Silver Fern Farms, that the report included emissions from deforestation for livestock production as opposed to just animal emissions. "Livestock’s role in deforestation is of proven importance in Latin America, the continent suffering the largest net loss of forests and resulting carbon fluxes (p. 91)." Its inclusion inflated emssions attrbutable to livestick by a third (or 6% of the reported total). This actually means emissions of live stock should be read as 12% and not the 18% the report claims [1]."

is based on inacurate second hand information; I have thus removed it. Pierre Gerber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.202.70.250 (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The text

''However, that last claim was contradicted five months later by Working Group III of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which was released on May 4, 2007. The Technical Summary of the IPCC report stated that the portions of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and transportation in 2004 were approximately equal -- 13.5% and 13.1% of the total, respectively. ''

is of no matter to this article, since it refers to the emissions from agriculture. Livestock's long shadow, however, deals with the emissions of the Livestock Industry (which includes emissions from agriculture, tranportation, forestry, etcetera) and not the emissions from agriculture alone. IPCC has not contradicted themselves. Therefore, I have removed this section.

217.28.34.132 (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The report clearly states that the 18% figure represents the total CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas impact. Total impact does not consist of only to single component resulting from the direct production of methane by cattle. It is hard to understand why there is this diversion in the article. Those sections should be rewritten or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.40.184 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(duplicated post)
(removed duplicated post)

Please add new content
Please cite the documentary Meat the Truth (the "animal annex" of An Inconvinient Truth) and the recent document "Livestock and Climate Change" by World Watch Institute, which says livestock colaborates with 51% of all greenhouse gas emmission. Robfbms (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also add new content that states that growing the grass eaten by livestock absorbs a large quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere and that livestock is part of a sustainable short-term carbon cycle, unlike petroleum products which are in an unsustainable carbon cycle lasting hundreds of millions of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.82.91 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please state numerical data in true units without using the word 'equivalent'. Equivalences enable the basis on which they are calculated to be concealed, thus destroying the value of any numerical data quoted. Percentages also enable data to be falsified. "Livestock colaborates with 51% of all greenhouse gas emmissions". . . what on earth does that mean, if anything? in what way do the animals collaborate? is there any meaning in that sentence, or is it just included for effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.82.185 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Al Gore in 'References to the report'
Didn't Al Gore profess to actually become a real, practicing vegan - upon further thought? MaynardClark (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Livestock's Long Shadow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111218171807/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Who can speek for the FAO and what?
In regard to reference 4: Obviously the FAO comparisson was flawed, but how could one conclude this: »producing less meat and milk would only result in “more hunger in poor countries” and that efforts should be focused on “smarter farming, not less farming”.« Is this newspaper article enough of a reference. Mitloehner's name is not in the report itself. He is part of the FAO Steering Committee, but also referenced with: »The International Feed Industry Federation, 2013 LEAP Chair«! What authorizes him to talk for the FAO and where does the FAO admit this flaw in its report? Fspade (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Leftover stuff from vetting this article
These two references might be useful, but weren't used usefully before:Leo Breman (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)