the problem is that “opportunity cost” is a theoretical savings that isn’t being extended to other kinds of emissions, they aren’t looking at what carbon opportunity costs exist if we sequester carbon in other ways, e.g. an equally implausible alteration as ending all animal agriculture and replacing the land used for animal agriculture with carbon sequestration would be to eliminate cars entirely and to replace parking lots with trees … but they only look at animal agriculture to determine the relative contribution to climate change … it’s not surprising to learn Climate Healers is an organization dedicated to pushing the idea that animal agriculture in the main cause of climate change, and that veganism is the only solution to climate change. These are activists, not scientists.

If a brand new, efficient gasoline car puts out 400 grams of carbon dioxide per mile it is driven, and a high-meat diet puts off 7 grams of carbon dioxide per day, I would imagine that cars contribute much more to carbon emissions than diet.

Current estimates are that about a quarter to a third of greenhouse gases emissions come from food production (including animal agriculture). Climate Healers suggest including other emissions that are not commonly included for good reasons, for example carbon dioxide has a very long atmospheric lifetime of over 100 years, and reducing CO2 emissions will be crucial to preventing climate disaster … bringing up black carbon that has an atmospheric lifespan measured in days is not helping create a more clear picture - it distorts rather than clarifies. I trust the climate scientists’ choice to focus on carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions as the main greenhouse gases of concern when looking at the impact to the climate, especially when you consider that this Climate Healers article is written by the founder, Sailesh Rao, who has no scientific background or education in climate science, and who has acted as producer on several films that have been criticized as sharing misleading or false statements, e.g. he was a producer on What the Health:

Martijn Katan, emeritus professor in nutrition from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, called the film “propaganda”. Katan says What the Health? exaggerates the health risks of meat, eggs and dairy, and dangerously claims veganism prevents or cures many diseases, like cancer or diabetes.

and was a producer of Cowspiracy which made false claims about the contribution of animal agriculture to climate change:

Doug Boucher, reviewing the film for the Union of Concerned Scientists blog, disputed the film’s assertion that 51% of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture. He described the 51% figure as being sourced from a 2009 Worldwatch Institute report by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang not from a peer-reviewed scientific paper. He claimed to have observed methodological flaws in Goodland and Anhang’s logic, and said that the scientific community formed a consensus that global warming is primarily caused by humanity’s burning of fossil fuels. He stated that the scientific consensus is that livestock contribute 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, far lower than the 51% stated by the film and the source article.

The actual evidence I can find from peer reviewed, scientific sources indicate animal agriculture contributes a minority of the relevant greenhouse emissions we should be concerned about. Emissions aren’t the only environmental impact of animal agriculture, and it’s abundantly clear that veganism is a way to improve the environmental situation (it’s better on every mark: personal health, ethical considerations, lower emissions, less water and land use, lowered species extinctions, etc.).

But this leads me to be puzzled why, given all the evidence that veganism is good for you and good for the planet, someone like Sailesh Rao feels the need to dedicate himself to distorting the truth and exaggerating the impact of animal agriculture on the environment or health … Given his books which betray religious interpretations of the environment and veganism, the motivations for distorting facts are likely personal, and it’s unfortunate because his unwillingness to respect evidence or science undermines his message and paints veganism as an extreme diet that cranks and quacks push.

Veganism is in much better hands with actual medical doctors and climate scientists who have carefully accumulated the evidence that shows the diet is healthier and better for the environment than the alternatives. Science and evidence allows anyone from any faith or creed to accept the truth as true; pushing veganism with falsehoods and distortions from a religious perspective only weakens the movement.