By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Kathleen Shannon for Wyoming News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Elon Musk recently appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, where he discussed everything from the benefits of sleep to gaming. But the conversation quickly shifted to meat, and led to a brief exchange - based on misinformation, rather than facts - that beef does not have a climate impact. Given the show's huge reach and Musk's newfound political influence, the exchange is worth unpacking and fact-checking.

Musk, who was once considered environmentally forward due to his work with electric vehicles, has a notably different stance when it comes to the climate implications of beef. In fact, Musk has tweeted that farming has no impact on climate change, and that killing "some cows" won't make a difference for the environment.

In reality, meat production and consumption are responsible for between 12 and just under 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. It is also a constant drain on our planet's water and land reserves.

Musk's suggestion otherwise reflects his ongoing dismissal of the environmental concerns surrounding animal agriculture. This is particularly concerning given his close relationship with President-elect Donald Trump, who recently appointed Musk to co-lead the new Department of Government Efficiency. Musk and Trump have had public discussions about climate change, with Musk once again downplaying the urgency of global warming by stating, "we don't need to rush" when it comes to addressing the climate crisis.

"The constant barrage of misinformation - spread through ads, inaccurate alternative news programming, and uninformed podcasters and social media influencers - can create an illusory truth effect where repetition makes false claims seem credible," Michelle Amazeen, a professor of mass communication at Boston University, and part of the university's Climate Disinformation Initiative, told Sentient in an email.

Musk's comments on the podcast, though brief, sidestep the growing body of evidence of the significant role the livestock industry plays when it comes to climate change. Let's dissect their exchange, and take a closer look at how two extremely influential men are representing this issue.

What Rogan Got (Almost) Right

Setting the scene, the conversation on animal agriculture started off with a one-off comment from Rogan about the carnivore diet, and how people dismiss it because of "propaganda" against animal agriculture.

Rogan: There is a lot of propaganda that put this thing out there that animal agriculture is the number one contributor to global warming.

Musk: It's rubbish, it's bullshit, it doesn't matter.

Rogan: Not only is it hot bullshit, but the real problem is factory farming. Regenerative farming is carbon neutral.

Rogan is technically correct that animal agriculture is not the number one contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, the EPA puts the transportation sector as the higher contributor, responsible for 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

Factory farming is also an important facet of the issue, as Rogan points out. Since 99 percent of the meat we eat comes from factory farms, impacts from animal agriculture are, by default, attributable to factory farming.

Here's where things go awry: despite Rogan's claim, research shows regenerative farming does not make meat carbon neutral. While it does appear to have some soil health benefits, according to the research, getting carbon to stay put in agricultural soils has not panned out (again, by the research). Factory farming, which operates on a more efficient scale, actually tends to result in lower emissions per unit of meat produced, though the tradeoff is living conditions tend to be worse for animal welfare.

Beyond direct climate pollution, factory farming is responsible for a range of other environmental problems and public health risks. Industrial animal agriculture is a leading cause of water contamination, as runoff from animal waste often ends up in rivers and groundwater, polluting drinking water supplies.

Factory farming is also a key driver of antibiotic resistance, which contributes to the rise of drug-resistant pathogens that threaten human health. These farms are often linked to disease outbreaks, including avian flu, as overcrowded conditions make it easier for diseases to spread from animal to animal and, in some cases, to humans.

All that said, research has shown that changing the way we produce meat to a more land-intensive approach like organic or regenerative (what some call "better meat") would be worse for climate change, not better, even if it might result in some important improvements, to soil health and animal welfare, for example. No matter the method, there is no getting around the urgent need for people in the Global North to reduce their meat consumption in order to stave off the worst global warming scenarios.

What Both Elon Musk and Rogan Got Very Wrong

The exchange went on:

Musk: The animals aren't going to make any difference to global warming. Zero percent, nothing...

It's not gonna make any difference to global warming or the CO2 concentration atmosphere, really, if people eat pure steaks, it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. Irrelevant. I wanted to be super clear about that. Yeah, it will not matter. You will not even be able to measure it. Okay, that's how irrelevant it is.

This statement is patently incorrect.

As already stated, livestock farming contributes between 12 and 19.6 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a range of studies. These figures come from peer-reviewed research conducted by experts in the field, such as the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which uses comprehensive methods to estimate emissions from different sources in the agriculture sector, including enteric fermentation (methane from digestion) and manure management. The lower estimate - 12 percent - comes from an FAO report, but more recent studies by the FAO and its partners suggest livestock emissions could be higher, depending on research methods.

Musk's claim that the impact of meat consumption is "irrelevant" fails to account for these significant potential reductions in emissions. Even reducing global meat consumption a few days a week would result in substantial environmental benefits.

While plant-based meat can help facilitate this transition, the plant-based protein industry is another point of contention for figures like Musk and Rogan - which leads to another part of their exchange that was also incorrect.

Rogan: Do you think that is just propaganda because of people that have a vested interest in things like plant-based meat products and things along those lines? Green energy.

Musk: I think that's part of it. You know that you're only going to get people pushing to avoid meat, like some people, just maybe they go natural, just maybe they just like vegetarians or vegans or whatever ideological, ideological reasons.

In reality, the meat industry remains much bigger, and far more influential than any so-called plant-based propaganda. Plant-based meat sales have gone down in recent years, in part thanks to the meat industry campaigning against plant-based alternatives, labeling them as "ultra-processed." These efforts are designed to steer consumers back to traditional meat.

The meat industry has actively worked to shape public policy and perception through government programs, such as the beef and pork "checkoff" programs. These are initiatives funded by the meat industry to promote the consumption of beef and pork. One of the most famous examples is the "Beef. It's What's for Dinner." campaign, which has been running since 1992. These programs have been highly effective in bolstering the demand for meat, creating an environment where meat consumption is not just normal, but celebrated.

While the plant-based industry is still growing, it simply does not have the same resources to flood the media with messages aimed at shaping consumer behavior and policy in the same way the meat industry has and currently does.

Here is how the conversation on this topic ended between Musk and Rogan:

Rogan: Isn't it funny that is heretic speaking now. That's crazy talk now, nowadays it's like you have to say that we have to eat less meat. That meat is bad.

Musk: Totally eat as much meat as you want, it is not going to make a difference. And if somebody says it does make a difference, I'm like, how will you measure it? And if you can't even measure it, then it's bullshit.

In fact, there are many ways to measure emissions from meat production. The University of Wisconsin-Madison has outlined several methods, including the use of respiration chambers, which capture the gasses animals release during breathing, and the SF6 technique, a more advanced method where a tracer gas is used to measure methane emissions directly from livestock.

Another key tool in the field is the Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM). GLEAM is designed to analyze environmental factors like feed use, land use, greenhouse gas emissions and more. GLEAM's goal is to measure resources used during livestock production and then identify the environmental impacts of farming livestock, arriving at the 12 percent figure cited above.

Scientists Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemeck also took a deep dive into global food systems by analyzing 570 studies across 38,700 farms in 119 countries in 2018. They focused on five key environmental factors: land use, water use (factoring in local water scarcity), greenhouse gas emissions, acidification and eutrophication emissions. Their findings showed that food systems are responsible for about 26 percent of global emissions (a more recent study put the number at around a third), with meat production as the largest driver of food-related emissions, responsible for 57 percent of that sector's pollution.

These models are key to understanding the full scope of livestock's impact on the planet, something Musk and Rogan's dismissal of the issue fails to acknowledge.

The Bottom Line

The impact of the views expressed by Musk and Rogan are not insignificant - The Joe Rogan Experience attracts millions of listeners, and the episode in question alone has been watched over 16 million times on YouTube and viewed by over 51 million on X. It also represents the way misinformation can easily spread on the internet.

"Podcasts are also becoming an increasingly popular medium for news, with nearly half of U.S. adults having listened to at least one in the past month, according to Statista. Both presidential candidates tapped into this trend, appearing on influential podcasts such as Joe Rogan's and Howard Stern's," Amazeen writes to Sentient. "These alternative news sources often lack the commitment to journalistic principles like verification and accuracy."

Musk has also centered himself in the public discourse, now tapped for Trump's incoming administration. Given Trump's previous track record of downplaying climate issues, there is a strong possibility that Musk's views will reinforce the President-elect's views, and his continued support of the meat industry.


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

New Mexico farmers finding it more difficult to grow historic crops are taking up conservation techniques to meet the challenge.

Drought, water scarcity, and extreme weather events combine to require growers to adopt new methods and modern tools.

John Idowu, extension agronomist specialist at New Mexico State University, shows farmers how to improve soil health and help control wind erosion. For long term success, he said they need to focus on sustainable, regenerative practices.

"How can I optimize my system and make it more resilient to climate change, to weather changes?" Idowu explained. "Once we have all those things worked out, farmers will tend to stay in business for longer."

Earlier this year, a NOAA satellite captured an image of winds lifting vast amounts of dust and dirt from New Mexico's dry farmlands. Some forecasters compared it to images last seen in the 1930s Dust Bowl.

Plowing agricultural fields annually was a common practice until the Dust Bowl period but in recent decades no-till or low-till farming operations have gained traction.

Bonnie Hopkins Byers, program director for the San Juan County Extension Service, encouraged New Mexico farmers to get a soil analysis and consider adopting the less aggressive approach. She said it could mean they do not need to till every year.

"One of the biggest problems is that people do something because that's the way they've always done it, or because it's the way their parents have done it, or their grandparents," Hopkins Byers acknowledged. "My philosophy has always been if you're going to till something over, till something in."

Intense dust storms known as "haboobs" were originally thought to be confined to Africa's Sudan but are becoming more common in other arid regions such as the Southwest.

Idowu stressed it makes the adoption of regenerative practices more urgent, as topsoil on New Mexico farmland disappears due to drought, land use changes and wind, which he noted has been particularly strong this year.

"The wind has been a major force, especially in the spring, so many days where you couldn't do anything outside because of the wind," Idowu observed. "You have a lot of dust and that means a lot of erosion and that is exactly what you don't like when it comes to crop production."

The New Mexico Healthy Soil Working Group formed to help farmers improve their land and livelihoods.


get more stories like this via email

By Carolyn Beans for Lancaster Farming.
Broadcast version by Mark Richardson for Keystone State News Connection reporting for the Lancaster Farming-MIT Climate Change Engagement Program-Public News Service Collaboration

At Mountain View Holsteins in Bethel, Pennsylvania, owner Jeremy Martin is always working to make his dairy more efficient.

Currently, he has his sights set on a manure solid-liquid separator. He'd like to use the solid portion of his manure as bedding for his 140 cows and the liquid as fertilizer.

But the project is pricey - he expects the equipment alone will run around $100,000. So Martin hopes to defray the cost through grant funding for dairy projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Removing much of the solids from manure reduces the feed for the methane-producing microbes that thrive in the anaerobic conditions of liquid manure.

The approach is just one of many dairy practices now considered "climate-smart" because they could cut production of climate-warming gases.

For Martin, a manure separator wouldn't be possible without a grant.

"Once it's in place and going, I think some of these practices will pay for themselves, but the upfront cost is more than I can justify," he says. "If there's money out there to pay that upfront cost to get started, it makes sense to me to do it."

Across Pennsylvania, dairy farmers are learning more about climate-smart practices and funding opportunities, and weighing whether these changes are really sustainable for their businesses as well as the environment.

The Latest Buzzword

USDA has defined climate-smart agriculture as an approach that reduces or removes greenhouse gas emissions, builds resilience to the changing climate, and sustainably increases incomes and agricultural productivity.

"Before climate-smart was a thing, we called it conservation. We called it stewardship," says Jackie Klippenstein, a senior vice president at Dairy Farmers of America.

Indeed, long before the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations coined the term "climate-smart agriculture" in 2010, Pennsylvania dairy farmers had adopted many of the practices that now fall under the label.

For dairy, climate-smart practices largely include strategies that reduce greenhouse gases emitted from cows, manure or fields. Tried and true conservation practices like cover cropping and reduced tillage count.

So do newer practices like using the feed additive Bovaer to reduce methane production in a cow's rumen, or precision nitrogen management to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from fields.

Paying for Climate-Smart

"Margins are very tight on the dairy farm," says Jayne Sebright, the executive director of the Center for Dairy Excellence, a public-private partnership to strengthen Pennsylvania's dairy industry. "Some of these (climate-smart practices) are good for the climate, but they don't make good economic sense until they're subsidized."

In 2022, the center joined a Penn State-run program called "Climate-smart Agriculture that is profitable, Regenerative, Actionable and Trustworthy" to provide dairy farmers with funds for switching to climate-smart practices.

CARAT was launched with a $25 million USDA Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities grant, but the future of the Pennsylvania project is in doubt. In April, USDA canceled the partnership program, suggesting that recipients reapply to a new USDA initiative called Advancing Markets for Producers.

Over 60 dairy farmers across Pennsylvania, including Martin, had already applied and been accepted into the first phase of CARAT. This initial phase was intended to help farmers identify the best climate-smart practices for their operations. In the second phase, farmers would have applied for funding to implement those practices. One farmer was already paid for his project before the USDA canceled the partnership program.

"There are fewer funding sources for climate-smart projects than in the last administration. However, private organizations and other entities are funding climate-smart projects," Sebright says. "Depending on what the practice is, (climate-smart) could also be conservation projects. It could be water quality projects."

Sebright suggests that dairy farmers also look for support through state-level funding, such as Pennsylvania's Resource Enhancement and Protection program, which offers tax credits for implementing practices that benefit farms and protect water quality.

Pennsylvania dairy farmers can also contact their county conservation districts to ask about funding opportunities for climate-smart projects, says Amy Welker, a project manager and grant writer for Pennsylvania-based Jones Harvesting, which operates Maystone Dairy in Newville and Molly Pitcher Milk in Shippensburg.

In the next year, Jones Harvesting plans to install a methane digester and solid-liquid separator at a site near Maystone Dairy. The digester is funded with an Agricultural Innovation Grant from the state and an Environmental Quality Incentives Program grant from USDA, along with private funds.

There's money out there for farmers who implement climate-smart practices, says Welker. But "you can't just look at one source."

Long-Term Payoffs

Ultimately, for climate-smart projects to make economic sense, they must continue paying for themselves long after the initial investment. One major goal of the USDA's Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program was to develop markets where farmers adopting these practices could earn a premium.

Some dairy farmers might see that return in the carbon market. National checkoff organization Dairy Management Inc. and its partners have pledged to shrink the industry's net greenhouse gas production to zero by 2050. There are growing opportunities for companies working toward that goal in the dairy supply chain to pay farmers for their contributions.

Early last year, Texas dairy farmer Jasper DeVos became the first to earn credits through the livestock carbon insetting marketplace. DeVos earned carbon credits by reducing methane emissions with a feed protocol that included the feed additive Rumensin. Dairy Farmers of America then purchased those credits through Athian, a carbon marketplace for the livestock industry.

Increased Efficiency

Even without direct monetary payoff, many farmers who adopt climate-smart practices reap rewards in improved efficiency and productivity.

"When you look at climate-smart, you also have to look at what's farm smart," Sebright says. She suggests that farmers choose practices that benefit their farms, not just the climate.

A farmer might decide to put a cover and flare system on a manure pit, not only because it reduces methane emissions but also because it keeps rainwater out of the pit and reduces the number of times each year the pit must be emptied.

Andy Bollinger of Meadow Spring Farm in Lancaster County has been running a manure separator since 2009. The liquid fertilizes his fields, and a portion of the solids becomes bedding for his cows.

He estimates the system saves him at least $20,000 a year in bedding costs.

"We put a fresh coating of it onto the stalls that our cows lay in every day and scrape the old stuff out," says Bollinger, who is also the vice president of the Professional Dairy Managers of Pennsylvania. "It seems to work quite well, and it saves us from buying other bedding products."

No-till farming is also a cost saver because it reduces field passes with equipment, says James Thiele of Thiele Dairy Farm in Cabot, which has been 100% no-till for at least six years. The practice saves him money on fuel and herbicides.

"You're saving your environment, and you're also saving green," he says.

But Thiele questions whether some other climate-smart practices like methane digesters would be practical for his farm, which has 75 to 80 cows.

"I don't know if it'd be worth it for somebody as small as I am," he says.

"I think over the next few years, we'll rapidly see (climate-smart) tools become more available, and we'll see more organizations like DFA talking to our small to mid-sized farmers to make sure they understand they've got a place in this, they can benefit from it, and the practices and tools are affordable to them as well," Klippenstein says.

Weighing Climate-Smart

Many dairy farmers wonder whether some of the practices championed as climate-smart will really support their businesses.

Donny Bartch of Merrimart Farms in Loysville has adopted environmental practices from cover cropping to a manure management plan.

"I want to protect the environment. I want to keep my nutrients here on the farm and be sustainable for another five generations," Bartch says. "But we have to make sure that we're making the right decisions to keep the business going. And to do some of these (climate-smart) practices, the only way they pencil out is to have those subsidies."

There is also frustration with a system that rewards climate-smart improvements made today without acknowledging the contributions of farmers who were climate-smart before anyone put a name on it.

"You come around and want to start rewarding people for doing these things. You really need to start with the ones that have been doing it for a long time, but that's really not what happens," says Jim Harbach of Schrack Farms in Loganton, whose farm has been no-till for 50 years.

Climate-smart grant money and carbon credits are typically awarded for the implementation of new practices.

"It's just the unfortunate way that all of the policies and regulations were written," Sebright says. "What I would say is, if you do a climate-smart plan, maybe there are practices or things you can do to enhance or support or take what you're doing a step further."

Scientific Measurements on Real Farms

Some dairy farmers also want to know more about how climate-smart practices will affect their farms before jumping in.

Steve Paxton remembers participating in a government program to improve timber over 50 years ago on his family dairy, Irishtown Acres in Grove City. His family members were paid to climb up into their white pines and saw off many of the bottom branches.

The goal was to create a cleaner log. Instead, more sunlight shown through, which caused grape vines to climb up and topple the trees.

"The bottom line is, there was research done, it looked good, but it hadn't had enough time to follow through and see just really what the end results would be," Paxton says.

When Paxton sees estimates of how some practices might reduce greenhouse gases emitted from cows, he wonders how much of that research has been tested on actual dairies.

"I think some of it now is just kind of a textbook estimate of what's happening," he says.

More meaningful data is needed to show how climate-smart practices reduce greenhouse gases on individual dairies, Sebright says.

As part of the CARAT program, Penn State researchers planned to place greenhouse gas sensors on a dozen dairies and test how much greenhouse gas production falls as farmers experiment with different practices. The researchers intended to then use that data to build models that predict how those practices may affect emissions on other farms. They will still measure emissions this spring on one farm that is experimenting with a new approach for spreading manure in fields of feed crops.

"The real goal of (CARAT) is to have research that says, if you put a cover and flare (manure storage system) on a 500-cow dairy, this is how greenhouse gas emissions will change," Sebright says. "Or if you use Bovaer on a 90-cow herd, here's how this will affect greenhouse gas emissions."

Martin of Mountain View Holsteins has his own personal beliefs about where a dairy farmer's responsibilities to the planet begin and end. But from a business perspective, he feels compelled to adopt climate-smart practices because he expects the industry will eventually require them.

"Climate concerns are coming whether I'd like it or not," he says. "So my thought is, I might as well get started on it while there's funding to do it."


Carolyn Beans wrote this article for Lancaster Farming.


get more stories like this via email

Oregon's new state budget cuts funding for programs intended to protect residents from extreme weather and make renewable energy more accessible.

Climate justice advocates said it is a major setback after years of progressive climate policies.

Ben Brint, senior climate program director for the Oregon Environmental Council, is disappointed to lose funding for the Community Renewable Energy Grant Program, which supports a variety of projects tailored to communities, including microgrids and solar storage.

"We felt legislators didn't fund climate resilience programs while fires are raging, people's houses are burning down and the state has already experienced record heat waves in June," Brint pointed out. "Legislators don't see we are in an actual climate emergency and chose inaction."

Brint said the grant program aimed to help low-income, rural and communities of color, those most impacted by climate disasters. Lawmakers attributed the cuts to budget shortfalls and uncertainty over federal funding.

Joel Iboa, executive director of the Oregon Just Transition Alliance, said the Community Resilience Hub program, which creates networks as well as physical places to protect people from extreme cold, heat and smoke also lost funding this session. He argued the hubs are effective because communities design them to meet their unique needs.

"Whether it be a place to plug in your phone or a place to go get diapers or get an air conditioner or whatever your community may need," Iboa outlined. "Depending on what's going on."

A heat pump program for rental housing, aimed at making energy-efficient heating and cooling more affordable, was also cut this session.

Brint added he realizes legislators have to make tough decisions about how to fund health care and housing but emphasized climate change is connected to those issues.

"When we're talking about heat pumps or the C-REP program, we're talking about people's health and livelihoods and saving lives in the face of climate fueled disaster," Brint stressed.

Brint added since climate change is not going away, the movement to push for climate resilience will not either.


get more stories like this via email