AN ACTIVIST report aiming to expose “big meat” for delaying climate action has drawn some questionable links between leading climate scientists and industry funding.

The “new merchants of doubt” was released by the Changing Markets Foundation last week, claiming to be a journalistic investigation into 22 of the world’s biggest meat and dairy companies – including JBS, Cargill and NH Foods. The title is a play on a 2015 book called the Merchants of Doubt which was aimed at a handful of scientists defending the tobacco and fossil fuel industries.

One of its claims was labelling University of Oxford professor Myles Allen and University of California Davis professor Frank Mitloehner “industry funded scientists” in a bid to discredit their work on using metrics that better reflect the warming impact of methane.

“It’s disappointing, if not unsurprising, that the authors try to discredit people like Prof Allen and Dr Mitloehner who are leaders in their scientific fields,” said Cattle Australia deputy chair Adam Coffey, who has been lobbying for a re-think of the way methane is measured and legislated.

“Perhaps that’s all they have left to defend their position,” Mr Coffey said.

While both have been pushing for the use of reporting metrics that better reflect methane, they have also been clear to industry about their views that livestock emissions are a problem and that their metrics are not a free pass.

Attacks on funding straight from the activists playbook

This type of attack is nothing new for Prof Mitloehner, who was the subject of coordinated hit pieces by Greenpeace and the New York Times last year for his industry links – which were always disclosed on the university’s website.

While Prof Mitloehner says his department of UC Davis is set-up to help the industry, Prof Allen has always distanced himself from industry advocacy saying he is simply advocating for credible science.

Prof Allen developed a well-known methane reporting metric called GWP star (global warming potential), which accounts for the short-lived nature of methane. It has been pushed by industry groups as a means of better reflecting livestock’s contribution to global warming.

Beef Central asked the CMF about the industry funding Prof Allen has received. It pointed to a UK House of Lords inquiry, where he disclosed that his research group has benefited from funding from meat company Hilton Food Group, as well as Beef + Lamb New Zealand and the UK National Farmers Union.

B+LNZ, along with other industry groups across the Tasman, commissioned Prof Allen and other scientists to look into their industry’s contribution to warming. Prof Allen spoke at UK National Farmers’ Union conference in 2020 and the Hilton Food Group is trying to understand its greenhouse gas footprint.

None of the the groups funded the development of GWP star.

Mr Coffey said it was important to note that GWP star was not developed specifically for the meat industry.

“GWP star has been developed to address the inaccuracies and shortcomings in historically used metrics in terms of how they quantify the warming impacts of short-term climate pollutants (STCP’s) like methane – regardless of whether the source is biogenic or fossil,” Mr Coffey said.

“When Cattle Australia hosted Myles in Canberra last year to hear more detail about the conversation around GHG metrics Myles was at pains to explain that he is not an advocate for the red meat sector. He went as far as to say it was somewhat frustrating that he was being perceived as that.”

What is the issue with GWP star?

One of the main points that GWP star shows is that the globally used metric GWP 100, which represents methane as a “CO2 equivalent”, overstates the warming impact of livestock emissions by three-to-four times – a point recognised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Given the CMF has labelled GWP star “fake science”, Beef Central asked what is actually wrong with the metric from a scientific point of view.

“One key problem is that, because GWP star measures the rate of change in emissions, countries which increase livestock herds from a low base, often in the Global South, would be viewed as more polluting than major emitters with large but relatively stable herds,” the organisation said.

“While corporations with high but stable methane emissions could claim to be climate neutral or even climate negative based on minor reductions in methane emissions – even though they are responsible for significant level of methane emissions.”

The climate negative or cooling rhetoric is used to explain that if methane emissions are being reduced over time than more emissions will be breaking down than what is going up and causing warming. Overstating the warming impact of increasing emissions is another issue recognised by industry organisations.

Beef Central pointed out to the CMF that its opposition to GWP star seemed to be more ideological than an actual issue with the science and asked what is wrong from a scientific point of view – to which it has not replied.

The CMF said GWP star is acceptable at a global level and when it is used alongside more recognised metrics like GWP 100. Industry groups, including Cattle Australia and UK Farmers Union, have also been calling for the two metrics to be used together.

Mr Coffey said the environmental groups are the ones trying to create division on the topic.

“It’s only controversial because some environmental activists and organisations have labelled it that way,” he said.

“Many of these organisations are predicated on selling fear, their business models rely on it. So at the slightest notion that enteric methane emissions have been grossly overstated it’s only natural they are going to go out of their way to discredit an IPCC approved methodology like GWP star.”

Who is the Changing Markets Foundation?

The CMF was founded by two former Greenpeace executives, Paul Gilding and Joakim Bergman – Mr Gilding was once the CEO Greenpeace International and Mr Bergman the deputy CEO. Its main goal is to influence companies to act on climate change.

Mr Gilding lives on a farm in Tasmania and according to the CMF website he has worked with many global organisations including Unilever, BHP Billiton, DSM, Ford and DuPont. He also a proponent of alternative proteins.

Given the organisation was happy to attack the funding sources of scientists from some of the world’s most respected universities, Beef Central asked who was funding it. It said it has a combination of funding sources both from its founders and philanthropy.

FCA says agriculture’s good work is not being recognised

Mr Gilding was once listed as a funder on the Farmers for Climate Action website. The organisation he has not financially contributed to the organisation for more than five years.

FCA CEO Natalie Collard said the organisation disagreed with CMF’s advocacy for a “stick” approach to reducing emissions and that the CMF missed all the good work agriculture is doing.

“The beef industry has been a leader in reducing emissions, but the coal and gas industries are not pulling their weight,” Ms Collard said.

“Beef farmers do fantastic work for the environment, including through planting native shelter belts and taking care of riparian areas, including around waterways. Ignoring these realities is ignoring climate action. You can always have a chat with a beef farmer about where the native birds are nesting – they know every corner of their properties.

“Taking the ‘stick approach’ to farmers does not work – carrots are the approach that makes sense for an industry already taking action to go further, faster. Incentives are needed for the agriculture sector, and FCA has consistently called for significant boosts to research and development funding in this space for several years.”

Report needs to be called out, RMAC

Red Meat Advisory Council chair John McKillop said the industry stood behind its credentials.

“This report needs be called out for the anti-meat propaganda that it is. It lacks any scientific credibility and unashamedly pushes a radical agenda to end livestock production to prevent consumers from eating meat,” Mr McKillop said.

“When it comes to the public interest we should be listening to more than 1,200 scientists from universities and research institutions around the world who have now signed a major international declaration in support of the essential role of animal agriculture in a sustainable food system.

“The Australian red meat and livestock industry has a reputation as being one of the leaders in sustainability and is internationally recognised for our efforts to date. This includes reducing our net greenhouse gas emissions by 78pc since 2005 while investing millions of dollars to boost research and development in new technologies to reduce our emissions footprint even further.

“We stand behind our credentials as a world leader in producing high-quality, healthy, and sustainable red meat. If these organisations were truly committed to addressing global climate challenges, they should be working with livestock industries to respond to global protein demand and not against them.”