No, Agriculture & Meat Aren’t A Bigger Driver Of Climate Change Than…

No, Agriculture & Meat Aren’t A Bigger Driver Of Climate Change Than Fossil Fuels

Burning fossil fuels accounts for 70% of global warming. That’s the overwhelming scientific consensus supported by the biggest, longest running meta-analysis in the history of science.

However, a recent peer-reviewed letter in solid journal Environmental Research falsely claims livestock and agriculture are responsible for 60% of historical warming—more than triple the impact it assigns to fossil fuels. It’s gotten media attention. It shouldn’t have.

Full assessment:

The methodology is deeply flawed. It cherry-picks gross land-use emissions without accounting for carbon sinks, uses instantaneous forcing instead of long-term global warming potential, and counts short-lived aerosol cooling as if it offsets fossil CO₂ forever. It doesn’t.

This isn’t just a bad paper—it’s a misleading one, driven by ideological bias rather than rigorous science. The author, a plant-based advocate, builds his case on assumptions that warp the science to fit a narrative. Peer review failed here.

Climate scientists—from the Global Carbon Project to Duke and Leeds—have pushed back hard, rightly so. Fossil fuels are, and remain, the dominant driver of global warming. That’s not a debate. That’s settled science.

Yes, agriculture and land use are a large driver of climate change and we have to address them, but the way to do that isn’t by pretending due to bias that they are the overwhelming problem.

We need better scrutiny from journals, and sharper media literacy when it comes to climate science. Bad analysis, no matter how well intentioned, is still bad for policy.

Environmental Research should yank the paper. Giving it the authority of being peer-reviewed does the journal and the world no favors.