Climate change, greenhouse gasses and reducing our carbon footprint are critical issues to the planet and to each and every one of us. Dr. Frank Mitloehner, also known as the greenhouse guru, joined Kathleen on Earth Day to help us all understand the environmental and health impacts of agriculture, food waste, fossil fuels and more.
Climate change, greenhouse gasses and reducing our carbon footprint are critical issues to the planet and to each and every one of us. Solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change are emerging and having an impact yet we need to do more.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner, also known as the greenhouse guru, is a UC Davis professor, air quality specialist, and Director, UC Davis CLEAR Center. He joined Kathleen on Earth Day to help us all understand the environmental and health impacts of agriculture, food waste, fossil fuels and more.
You don’t want to miss this fascinating discussion that will enlighten you about causes of climate change. It will inspire you to make informed decisions that can improve the health of the planet and ourselves. Start today by reducing your food waste to make your personal impact on global warming.
Dr Tom: [00:00:00] Lifestyle
is medicine when
done, right? Especially food choices has the potential to eliminate 80% of chronic disease. Our mission is to be the trusted signal of truth, based on the weight of the evidence that rises above the definitely noise of misinformation.
Kathleen: We offer you a no nonsense and enjoyable approach to the fundamentals of nutrition and wellness.
Our goal is to give you simple and actionable strategies so you can make. Health promoting decisions every day. Welcome to the true health revealed podcast. I am your host, Kathleen Zalman registered dietician nutritionist, and today we're tackling a really interesting and vital subject climate change, climate change, greenhouse gases, taming, our carbon footprint, all issues that are critical to the planet, but they're also critical to each and every one.
And there seem to be solutions that are emerging, but are they [00:01:00] enough? Will it really make a difference on this warming planet experts? Don't always agree. But today my guest, Dr. Frank Mitt Lerner is a UC Davis professor and an air quality specialist director of clear center. That is the UC Davis clear center.
That's trying to help a global community understand. The environmental and human health impacts of livestock and agriculture and how we can make better informed decisions. His research is focused also on food production challenges across the world's population that we know by 2050 will be 10 billion.
He's got more than 120 peer reviewed publications, multiple awards, also known as the greenhouse gas, Google. But he's here today to help us understand all these issues and navigate the path forward so we know how we can make a difference. So welcome Frank. Well, thank you for having me. I'm so excited and I'm [00:02:00] excited that we're taping this interview on earth day.
Nothing could be more appropriate. So let's start with the basics, help us understand all these different atmospheric terms that affect the climate. So greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, carbon emissions, methane, or how are they all different? And as, as easily as you can get us to understand, help us get started in the conversation.
Frank: If you just want an overview as to what these gasses do and why they matter. We need to start with the sun, the sun radiates down solar radiation to the surface of the earth. And normally that radiation would return back into space. It would be roughly. Um, if there weren't a blanket of gas as called greenhouse gases, uh, that human activity is putting into our atmosphere.
So imagine a blanket that you put over your body in, on a, on a cool summer evening. Um, [00:03:00] why does that blanket keep you warm? It keeps you warm because the heat that your body radiates off is trapped by that. The same happens with these greenhouse gases. They form a blanket around our earth atmosphere and prevent some of that solar heat, that solar radiation to radiate back and be reflected back into space.
And that's actually an important function of these greenhouse gases without greenhouse gases. Life on earth would be way too. The problem is that human activity is producing too many of these greenhouse gases. And that means the blanket is getting too thick. And hence, we are retaining too much of that solar heat on our planet, in our atmosphere and that's causing warming.
And here, when I say greenhouse gases, I mean three in particular, number one is CO2 carbon dioxide, largely a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Second methane and. Nitrous oxide. So these three are the main greenhouse gases that warm up our planet. [00:04:00]
Kathleen: Okay. So let's start with CO2 fossil fuels. So is that the energy sector is that what's causing a lot of the.
Frank: Yeah. So, first of all, when we hear fossil fuels, what are they? Fossil fuels are pure carbon that was stored in the ground for a long, long time. Formerly hundreds of millions of years ago. These, these carbon molecules were plants and animals such as dinosaurs. This biomass diet decade fossilized and accumulated underground for a long time.
You know, really a hundreds of millions of years. And, uh, this fossilized carbon has now for the last 70 years, seven zero that is been extracted by human activity has been extracted. And, uh, once it was re uh, extracted, we burned it. And so where do we put that carbon? We put the carbon from the ground up into the atmosphere.
And every time we burned that carbon, that oil colon gas, we're putting new and additional carbon in the atmosphere. And that causes new and [00:05:00] additional.
Kathleen: And then methane, what is the main source of methane?
Frank: And before I say, what, what the details are on methane is just really quickly, what are the sources of CO2?
Well, everything that burns fossil fuels that can be transportation, that's cost, trucks, transplants ships. It is, uh, the cement industry. It is the power production and use and so forth. So now. Methane is largely a result of organic material decompose. Under oxygen deprived conditions in swamps in rice patties, in the digestive tract of ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep, goats, and so on.
So that is a gas that is about almost 30 times more potent in trapping heat from the sun, uh, per molecule versus CO2. So methane is, is almost 30 times more heat-trapping per molecule than CO2. Um, and that's the bad. Um, the good news [00:06:00] is it's produced in much, much smaller amounts. CO2 by far is the most prevalent, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere methane much less, but it is a potent greenhouse gas.
It traps a lot of. And then finally nitrous oxide. That's the bad boy. Uh, it's almost 300 times more potent than CO2 per molecule. And nitrous oxide is the result of nitrogen, uh, decomposing in the ground. That can be from chemical fertilizers, but it can also be from animal manure. When these nitrogen fertilizers are applied to crops, let's say, um, then sooner or later, some microbes will convert some of the nitrogen.
Into nitrous oxide and that's that we knows gas that were quite concerned about.
Kathleen: So I read a EPA report recently, 2020 on greenhouse gas, emission sources, and they estimated that agriculture was 11% transportation, [00:07:00] 27% electricity, 25% industry 24, and then commercial, residential. So, how do they aggregate these numbers?
I'm assuming from these three sources so that the potent nitric oxide, is that part of all of these numbers or is it related more to agriculture because of the manure or the fertilizers?
Frank: So great question. So, uh, the three greenhouse gases are oftentimes characterized, uh, using a, uh, a so-called matrix that compares them to one another.
So with methane being 28 times and nitrous oxide, 265 times more potent than CO2, all that people do is convert. Uh, methane source, let's say a certain source produces 10 tons of methane. You just multiply that 10 tons. That company emits times the factor 28. That's how much more [00:08:00] potent methane is than CO2.
And then if you multiply, for example, in our example, you're 10 tons times 28, you arrive at 280 tons and that's then called CO2 equivalent CO2. Yeah, same thing with nitrous oxide, because the fact is 265. All you need to do is multiply a given amount that's given off by a sector times that factor 265, and then you arrive at the CO2 equivalent emissions.
And so what the EPA does is it looks at how much CO2 methane nitrous oxide is produced by a given sector that say transportation or power production or agriculture. And then it's all converted into CO2 equivalent units. And then these sectors are. So you are right transportation, power production, and certain industries such as, uh, such as the cement industry amount to approximately 80% of all greenhouse gases in the United States, 8 0 0.
Kathleen: Would you repeat those? What were those sectors cousin? Say [00:09:00] it one more time.
Frank: Yeah, sure. This is really important. So there are three, three main sectors. The one is the transportation side. Second one is the power production and use sector. And the third one is called industries and here in particular, the cement industry, wow.
These three transportation power production, and this men sector, they amount to about 80%, eight zero agriculture amounts to around 10 or 11%. And that is split pretty even between plant and animal agriculture. Where, um, so far the EPA has always, uh, enumerated animal agriculture and that's everything.
That's a dairy and beef and sheep and goats and poetry and feed. Um, two, 4%, four, maybe 5% of total emissions and crop agriculture, uh, to the remaining five or so percent amounting to a total of 10% for agriculture. Um, and here on [00:10:00] the animal agricultural side, the main. Uh, contributor is methane from ruminant animals, meaning, um, beef and dairy cows, but also, uh, sheep and goats.
They produce a lot of methane and methane has a good punch to it, as I said before. And so that is why livestock has a significant, uh, greenhouse gas, uh, But, um, the discussion is actually more nuanced than that. Uh, and we can talk about that in more detail if you wish. Um, what's really important is to note though that while it's true, that methane is a potent greenhouse gas.
There is more to it. Methane is about 28 times more potent than CO2. I've said it twice, but what's different between methane and the other greenhouse gas. Against you to a nitrous oxide is the fact that methane is not just produced, [00:11:00] but methane is also naturally destroyed and the other ones are not. And that leads to a situation where methane has a very short life span.
So there's a process that kills methane, and that makes methane, um, only viable for about a decade. And then it's gone. And the other greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for hundreds, if not thousands of. And that makes a big difference in how methane versus the other greenhouse gases actually warm the planet.
And of course, I can go into that detail if you so wish
Kathleen: I do, because I read one of your blogs about bio gas, which I thought was fascinating that large trucks and luxury cars are being powered by dairy cows through this bio gas from their maneuvers. Obviously some innovative technologies that's helping to reduce greenhouse emissions and by your estimates was by more than 20% on.
Frank: Yeah. So, um, I want to be very [00:12:00] clear with your, with your listeners, that I am a strong proponent of reducing greenhouse gases and particularly methane from the agricultural sector. And that's where I spent the majority of my research time. Um, and the reason why I'm so bullish around methane is because I view methane in contrast to many others, not as much as a liability as I view it as an.
And the reason for this is that if you pull methane from the atmosphere, if you reduce methane, then you're pulling carbon much as if you were to plant trees and your photosynthesis, as you know, your texts, your two out of the air. Uh, so trees do that. They reduce carbon emissions, they reduce carbon, the atmospheric carbon.
If you reduce meth and you do the same thing, you reduce carbon from the atmosphere and instantaneously reduce. And reduce warming means. I mean, that's pretty much another word for cooling. Okay. And so if you reduce methane, then that has [00:13:00] a, an immediate impact on our climate and a very positive one. And that is a function that only methane has the other ones.
The other gases don't have that if you reduce CO2 on nitrous oxide, you're not reducing, uh, warming the way that you are reducing warming by reduction self. So, can it be done? You already mentioned that, um, uh, it is possible to reduce methane. And one way we do this here in California is that our large dairies are now covering.
The manure storage. That means the place where the manure of the cows ends up. They're covering the so-called, uh, lagoons. That's what they're called. And, um, and then the gases that normally would be produced and released into the atmosphere. These gases are now trapped under that top, under that plastic and this gas mixture that's now trapped is referred to as.
Bio gas [00:14:00] consists of approximately 6660% methane. And methane has, um, another interesting aspect to it named me that it is a form of energy. And so this bio gas is not trapped under these covered lagoons and then clean. So that, um, as a result, you pretty much have pure methane. And that bio gas that cleaned up bio gas is then taken to be converted into a fuel type called R N G or renewable natural gas.
And this renewable natural gas serves as a fuel for vehicles such as semi-trucks. And this conversion of dairy biogas from these lagoons, this conversion of dairy buyer gas to transportation fuel. This renewable natural gas is considered by our states agency, the California air resources board as the most carbon negative fuel type there is.
And carbon negative sounds like [00:15:00] a bad thing, but it's a good thing because it means it is, um, it is very different from fossil fuels in so far that it has the lowest carbon. So here in California, where we have a really stringent, um, air regulation, and now also greenhouse gas regulations. For example, a rule, a law that mandates a 40%, four, zero 40% reduction of methane here in California.
Our state agency, the California air resources, board views. This so-called pathway of dairy, bio gas to transportation fuel this dairy bio gas to renewable natural gas as the most carbon negative fuel type there is. And the state of California incentivizes this technology very strongly financially, incentivizes it through first, uh, capital investment funds, meaning helping farmers to put those covers in.
And secondly, by. [00:16:00] Making credits available called low carbon fuel standard credits, low carbon fuel standard credits. This combined incentive of capital investment, uh, support and low carbon fuel standard credits makes this technology very, uh, appealing to farmers and has led to a situation where over the last few years, our dairy sector has reduced its methane by 2,500.
Kathleen: That's sensational. And is it you it's California. You're referring to, but is it happening across the country?
Frank: Uh, so often car finally leads the way in this field, but others are about to follow so similar rules and regulations and incentive-based actions are happening now in, uh, adjacent states, such as Washington, Oregon, and others.
In my opinion, this will be a role model for the rest of the country. If not. Because, because what you do is you [00:17:00] take something that everybody considered a problem, which is methane, and you make it into a utility. You turn something that was considered a big issue and you make it into a big solution. And within you turn off farmers from being the bad guys into not just producing food, but also energy.
And that's what the world needs to. Oh, and
Kathleen: farmers can use a boost. They really are. They're our lifeline. I mean, think about it. Where would you get your food otherwise? Well, let's shift and talk about beef because beef has gotten a bad rap. Um, there's a movement at the true health initiative or mothership to reduce beef consumption because of what's happening in the rainforest and that the ranchers are raising rainforest land so that they can use it for.
And also things like there are, uh, Epicurious. I don't know if you're familiar with that magazine. They're phasing out beef as an ingredient in their recipes. McDonald's now. [00:18:00] Uh, plant burger, you know, fo meat products are expected to, you know, be reached 85 billion in sales by 2030, even Tyson foods. One of the biggest beef Packers in the U S is starting to introduce its own plant baseline.
So there's people are, are scrambling and worried and, and about beef and its impact on health and the planet. And I would love you to weigh in and, um, give us your perspective.
Frank: Yeah. That's a lot to unpack.
Kathleen: Let's start with the rainforest.
Frank: Yeah, let's start there. So, first of all, The rainforest issue is real. Um, and it occurs in two major areas of the world in Southeast Asia. There it's more related to, um, Palm oil production, that's Indonesia and so on. And then the other region is, um, is in Brazil and the Amazon.
And there, the deforestation has largely, um, [00:19:00] two main functions. The one is to grow soy and the other one is to, um, to grade. Um, so I, when all of this discussion came out, I did some research into, uh, how much of this beef that's produced in Brazil actually ends up in the United States. And the answer to that is much less than 1%, much less than 1% of the beef we consume in the United States comes from the areas in the world where deforestation of.
Uh, the vast majority of the beef that's produced, there goes to four different countries. And when I say there, I mean, produced in Brazil, goes into four different countries. The number one by far is China. The number two, uh, biopharma is, uh, is Egypt and then some other Northern African countries. Uh, it's not going by and large to most of the developed world, uh, such as European countries or into the United States.
So there's a notion of. Uh, eating beef [00:20:00] leads to deforestation, uh, suggesting that that happens here is not true. Land use change is a, there's a, the discussion under which this is listed land use change means. Uh, changing natural forest land and so on to establish a cattle grazing is not occurring in the United States.
And it hasn't occurred in, in ages. In ages. We are not losing forest land in the United States. In fact, we are increasing it and we have been doing this for decades. So. In my opinion, uh, the, the issue around deforestation and eating beef here in the, in the motherland is, uh, is a typical, uh, distraction, uh, strategy, a smokestack, uh, or a smokescreen, I guess.
Um, that's not to say that I'm not concerned about what's happening in the Amazon, but what is happening in the Amazon is not related to the beef that we eat here. So that's a separate [00:21:00] topic. Okay. And it is one that needs to be addressed and it needs to be reduced or stopped. So I'm the first one to say that, but again, the beef that we eat to here has nothing to do with that.
Okay. Now, the other issue you brought up is, um, These plant-based alternatives that have been tutored so much over the last few years. Um, I find that discussion particularly interesting because what you read in much of the media and what is actually happening in reality are drastically different, drastically different.
Um, first, um, I have. Done some research myself here, uh, in, uh, at the university of California in Davis on the differences between plant-based alternatives versus, uh, the original animal-based, uh, products such as a beef Patty versus impossible burger and beyond meat burger. And our results are [00:22:00] drastically different from the results that are offered by these companies.
Interesting. How so? So for example, we did an analysis where we simulated what would happen if 15%, one, five, 15% of all beef patties were, were to be replaced with plant-based alternatives. Uh, just to give you one idea, and this research has not even been published yet. So this is really hot off the press.
If we were to replace 15% of beef patties with plant-based alternatives, we would reduce greenhouse gases in the United States by 0.08%. So a 15%, which is a gigantic reduction, which would be a gigantic reduction would leave to a 0.08% reduction of greenhouse gases in the United States. And the reason why that reduction would be so low is because.
This replacement of 15% beef with plant-based would not lead to a meaningful reduction of a cattle herd. [00:23:00] And the reason why that wouldn't occur is because people don't grow cattle because of the minced meat that makes beef patties, but they grow cattle because of the major. Like stakes and so on. And that means even if we were to consume less mincemeat, that would not lead to a reduction of the beef herd and that would not lead to reduction of the greenhouse gas.
Interesting. I could go on, on this topic.
Kathleen: Well, you know, I find that it's people are afraid and it's ironic that the only way to get people to eat less beef is to trick them into thinking they're eating it because these plant-based burgers taste bleed and look just like a real burger. And that's why I just find somewhat interesting.
So I'm glad you recognize that, you know, I mean, obviously. Deforestation is not good for the planet so that, you know, it's important that they recognize that. But how about food waste? How much is the food that we throw into [00:24:00] landfills contributing to our greenhouse gas?
Frank: So, if you believe the United nations food and agriculture organization and the reports on food waste and food losses, then, um, the numbers cited are that almost 40%, four zero of all food produced in the developed and in the developing countries of the world, go to waste here in the United States, it's close to 40%.
Again, that's four zero of all the food that we grow. That's. That's wasted and that's trashed someplace into landfills and so forth. Um, by the way, that's interesting too, that there are differences across food waste in different food groups. The most, um, the most wasted food group, uh, is clearly the fruits and vegetables, which are the most perishable food items we produce, uh, where food waste numbers [00:25:00] are exceeding 50%.
50. Some people say close to 60% and the reason for these enormous numbers is that anything that doesn't look good, anything. And if you've ever grown these things, you know, there's a lot that doesn't look right. I mean, you can eat it. It's fine to eat, but people don't buy it. And so it's wasted in the supermarket.
It's wasted in the kitchens. It's wasted just every. 50 to 60% of fruits and vegetables are wasted. Um, and 10 to 20% of animal source foods. That's the lowest wasted food group. That's. And the statistics, but I think overall, a number of 40%, it should ring a bell anywhere and a, a serious alarm bell everywhere that this is absolutely unacceptable.
Okay. So some people say, well, the 4% of greenhouse gases caused by livestock, uh, a huge number of. We need to definitely, uh, reduce that and best, uh, to just forego [00:26:00] animal source foods altogether. But what I don't want to hear from these people who are so adamant about that topic is, uh, I don't hear them say we are wasting 40% of all food.
We grow let's change that because that is by far the 800 pound gorilla in the. Um, sphere. Okay. There's no question about that. Think about all the fertilizer or the water or the land. And so on that grows, that goes into producing 40% of all food. That's all for nothing. It's not even fed to animals. It's just going away.
It's just wasted. And once it's in landfills, um, it undergoes decomposition even, or either anaerobic decomposition and then it becomes methane order or under, uh, aerobic conditions. It becomes CO2. So that is certainly something that is super ripe for, for reform.
Kathleen: Well, and it's something that every person can do, do a better job of it made wasting food.
Uh I'm I'm just militant on [00:27:00] not wasting food. Try not to buy more than I need. I try to use things. And when things, when food especially produce starts to look a little wonky, figure out a way how you can use it and you can put it in a soup. You can ma you can cook it. You can freeze it for a soup at a later time, but you don't have to throw it away.
And if you want to throw it away, is it good to compost? It does that help?
Frank: Yeah. You know, one of the reasons why so much is thrown away is because people are largely. I don't want to sound patronizing or so, but uh, most people really don't know enough about food. That's just the way it is. And many, many people don't know how to cook anymore and they don't know how to preserve.
And now to, uh, you know how to do all the things you just mentioned, they are just largely disconnected from. What our grandparents knew about food and even maybe our parents still, but today, many people just buy ready food, or go into restaurants and don't know [00:28:00] how to cook. I know this because I'm, I'm teaching hundreds of, of students here on campus.
And I can tell you, in my 500 student class, uh, 90% of the 990% of these students don't know how to cook more than two dishes. And one of them is probably a spaghetti bolognese, you know? So it's. It's not good. There's a disconnect and a disconnect between people and food. And, uh, and people think they know a lot about food and nutrition, but they really don't.
So I think that we have to get that back into schools and, and people need to learn about nutrition and so on in schools, in universities and so forth. I think it's really critical. And, um, Um, that to me is extremely important. I have two little kids, seven and nine years old. I can tell you, I teach them everything I know about food and they love it.
They love
Kathleen: that. I think kids want to know. I have to tell you, I have two adult children now that when they were in high school, I made them take my course mom, 1 0 1 [00:29:00] and mom 1 0 1 taught them. We would go to the grocery store. We would teach them how to pick out food, how to choose food correctly, how to read nutrition labels.
They learned how to cook. They have a bunch of recipes. They do. And they're each I have a son and a daughter. Each of them. Decent have a, my daughter better than my son, but decent in the kitchen and certainly understand the importance of not wasting food and how to use your freezer. I mean, everybody has a freezer, you know, you can buy food when it's in season and, you know, get all those blueberries and throw them in the freezer.
And now you can make a dessert someday, or you can use them for a muffin. I'm so happy that you agree with me on the importance of it. And I think if people look at it relative to the gases that it produced, I mean, we're, we're, we're bullish on beef, but yet how about let's be bullish on the fact that we're in control of what we throw in the garbage and what we
purchased.
Frank: Yeah. So absolutely. So, and if you don't mind, after I [00:30:00] make another comment, I would like to go back to beef because that, that is something that we also need to talk about. But before we go there, I would like to say, you know, I'm, I'm very blessed that I live in the central valley of California. We have great, uh, great growing conditions for crops and so on.
So we do grow all the plant, uh, food that we eat, uh, ourselves. And so we, we, we rented a little strip of land from a farmer, 70 foot long, three foot. And then we can grow way more than we can possibly consume. And, uh, when we harvest, when we fertilize, I think our kids are working they're with us and they see the challenges around it.
Okay. What nature throws at us with respect to pests and. Um, all the, all the challenges, you know, drought and, and, and, and so forth. And so, and then we eat everything together. And so we grew up pretty much everything except for the animal source foods that we consume, because, uh, you know, that don't get too
Kathleen: [00:31:00] much.
Frank: I really want them to learn about that. I think it's really
Kathleen: important. Oh, I couldn't agree with you more. So let me just wrap up on food. What I read from the UN environmental program reports was it's roughly eight to 10% of, of greenhouse gases are associated with food waste. Would you agree with that number?
Frank: Yeah, I would. I would. And you know what? One of the main reason is for, for our food waste, one of the main reasons is that the stamp on our food is. Considered by most as an expiration date when indeed it's just a sell by date. People think the date means it's no longer good and they throw it away. When, when indeed it's nothing other than it should have been sold in the supermarket on that day.
That's a big.
Kathleen: Well, and it's supposed to change. I mean, they're supposed to have all of the labels be consistent, so there's less confusion and best buy or sell by, you know, so that they don't think it's [00:32:00] an expiration date. So I hope that happens. Okay. So you wanted to talk a little further about beef by all means.
What would you like to add? Yeah.
Frank: So the, the biggest contribution of beef and dairy cattle to climate is methane. And as a, um, and, and so this methane is belched out. So it's burped out pretty much. It's coming from their stomach coming out the front end of the cow. Uh, some of it is also coming from the Adam in Europe.
What is really important to note though, is. Methane is not just produced by animals. Let's say. And other sources methane is also naturally destroyed and that destruction process is caused by a molecule that's in the air. It's called a hydroxyl radical. Okay. So within 10 years, a methane molecule meets this radical radical will destroy methane.
And so while methane is in the air, it's a potent greenhouse gas. But as I said before, it's not in the air for very long. If you have. A [00:33:00] constant source of methane, such as a constant capital hood, let's say then approximately an equal amount of methane that's produced by those animals is also being destroyed through this hydroxyl oxidation process.
A constant herd of cattle does not at new, additional warming. This is new to most, but largely agreed upon by many in this field that I'm in. Um, and that's really relevant. What we don't want to do is grow cattle, Hertz that say from a certain number of a million in a certain region to one and a half minutes, then you would add additional new, additional methane and therefore new, additional warming, but a constant herd does not add additional.
Kathleen: Just the constant heard account for calves being born and, and, uh, yeah. So the natural cycle of life. Yeah. So
Frank: let's say in the United States, we have approximately a hundred million large ruminants, such as beef and dairy. Okay. 100 [00:34:00] million. But we also had it a hundred million, 10 years ago, and we had more 20 years ago and way more, 30, 40 years ago.
So we are, we are going down in our cattle inventory. That means the total source of methane is not going up. It's going down. And even with a constant source of methane, we would not add additional warming what everybody does right now. And that's the problem. Around the reporting for beef and dairy is that people do not consider the fact that methane is not just produced, but also destroyed that is being left out of the discussion, but it is being destroyed.
And that makes a huge difference in. The warming impact assessments for beef and for dairy. So don't get me wrong. I'm not diminishing the importance of methane. I say methane is a very important greenhouse gas, one that we seek to further reduce. And the reason for that is [00:35:00] that once we reduce methane, then we can reduce warming and make the sector part of a climate solution.
I now have a situation here in Califor. We're dairies that use, for example, these covet lagoons and reduce their methane emissions into the atmosphere where these dairies become. Climate neutral, meaning they don't add any additional warming. And if they go, if they go further, they're even more aggressive and they reduce more methane than they need to.
In order to reach climate neutrality, then they can sell their credits to other sectors such as shell, BP BMW and Mercedes. And that's happening today. Our farmers are now selling. To fossil fuel sector, uh, uh, emitters and they are making money with this. This is amazing to me. So the discussion around beef and dairy on the one side and the impact on climate is not nuanced enough and it will be in the next [00:36:00] few years right now, it's still early on, but, um, be prepared for things to change.
Kathleen: I love it. And I think also another aspect that's not well known yet. How cattle are able to use agricultural byproducts. So brewers, grains, people, cotton seeds, the Allmand hauls that there are so many out in California, potato peelings. This is normally waste that they're able to turn into animal source food.
So that's another aspect that is, um, really, you know, so impressive to me.
Frank: Yeah, well, there are two, there are two aspects here. The one is the one you just mentioned, and that is that there's an enormous amount of agricultural crop byproducts that if it weren't for ruminant, animals would just go to landfills.
We wouldn't have no other, no other
Kathleen: greenhouse gases. That's
Frank: correct. That's correct. The reason why we have so many dairy cows in California. While we have the largest concentration of dairy cows in the nation is because we have so much crop production and [00:37:00] all these byproducts now have found a place to go to.
So, um, about 50% of the diet you feed to dairy cow, our agricultural byproducts, like cotton seeds on half of it. Yes. Half of it. And, but what's also oftentimes not understood is that. Even on the beef side, beef animals spend at least all beef animals. Also those that are finished, it's called finished, finished in a feedlot where they're spent the last four months of their life, uh, eating, uh, corn, rich diet, even beef, cattle, or beef cattle spent the vast majority of their lives on pasture about at least two thirds of their lives on pasture and what they're eating there.
Is for bridges that contain something nobody else can digest. And that's cellulose. Cellulose is a carbohydrate. It is the world's most abundant bio-mass, uh, nutrient because it's contained in [00:38:00] grasses and the only animals that can make use of cellulose digest it and make it into animal source. Foods of highest nutritional quality are ruminant animals.
Dairy beef, sheep and goats. They are the only ones who can do that. So on the one hand, it's a recycled function. That's the agricultural byproducts. On the other hand, it is an up cycle function of taking cellulose, something nobody else can digest and convert, and they do that. They digest converted into something that's extremely nutrient dense, as we all know.
So it's recycling and upcycling.
Kathleen: Amazing. All right. So this has been an amazing conversation and I'm, I'm so pleased to have you today, but I want to end with a couple of key questions. So if we're not thinking about health health aside, is it, and only thinking about our climate change and greenhouse gas?
Is it better to be a vegan [00:39:00] than a flexitarian that includes animal products in your diet, just in terms of those greenhouse gases.
Frank: Yeah. So, um, a plant-based diet will always have a low carbon footprint, a lower footprint on the woman of. Um, and so some work was done not too long ago, looking at what were to happen.
If we were to reduce, if we were to go meatless Monday as a nation, the entire United States, one day less animal source foods. And what came out of that was that we would reduce our carbon footprint as a nation by 0.3% with a meatless Monday campaign. If the entire country were to go view. All 320 million Americans, no more animal source foods.
So that's the extreme, not very realistic, but if that were to happen, then we would reduce the carbon footprint of the United States by 2.6%. So your listeners can decide whether that's a lot or not, but there would be a reduction, but in my opinion, it is highly, highly [00:40:00] unlikely that anything. Any major magnitude, uh, like that would, were to occur.
Um, what I, what I learned not too long ago, when meeting with some leadership within the vegan society of this country or the United States, was that the greatest challenge, the greatest challenge of all is the so-called retention rate. And that describes the rate of people who stick with it for longer than.
Yeah. And according to these people, the retention rate is 84%, meaning 84% of all people who start that regimen stick with it for longer than one year. So instead of telling people, now let's all go plant-based, which is not going to happen. We have seen this over the last few years, instead of telling people let's go vegan to save the planet, let's start and let's focus on two things.
The one. Yes, reduce, reduce food waste. I think that's very important. The second one is help our farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the farm, because not [00:41:00] just can they do that, they have been shown to do that. Um, but they can convert some of those liabilities into assets. Those farmers are critically important, strategically important to the wellbeing of our nation and of all nations let's work with these people and reduce the environmental footprint of.
Kathleen: Absolutely. So for the listeners at home, what are some key, other things you can do drive less, you know, walk more when we talked about reducing our food waste. How about other sectors that might be impactful that each and every one of us could start to try to do a better job of,
Frank: yeah. You know, I hate to say it, but this whole personal responsibility.
Issue was pushed by some of the fossil fuel companies, including BP, about 30 years ago. And they did this because they wanted to shift the blame away from themselves, which, uh, the main contributors to greenhouse gases [00:42:00] in this country and worldwide, and suggest to people that you personally, by changing what you do can have a major.
Uh, while you might feel good about changing, you know, uh, doing more recycling or warm, you wash your clothes with cold water or any of that. It overall has a very small contribution to the overall warming footprint of our nation. The most important thing you can do personally, is. I am not kidding you. I love that is the most important thing.
And the reason for this is because there are people who take this seriously and, uh, I mean, parties and, um, and in
Kathleen: general,
Dr Tom: you're talking, right? Correct.
Frank: Um, and there are others who don't and, uh, we don't have the time to go through several iterations of governments who don't believe in this and have no policies in place to reduce it.
We must take this seriously. [00:43:00] And the way we do take it seriously is through serious policy interventions. And they, uh, they are effective personal actions make you and I a few better. Yeah. Um, but overall they will not lead to the changes and reductions with.
Kathleen: Well, I'm going to let that be the final word, because I don't think I can beat that.
But Dr. Frank, it's been fabulous. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom and your expertise and in motivating us and helping everyone understand the issues that are at hand. And I thank you and happy earth day. Same
Dr Tom: to
Frank: you. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr Tom: Thank you for listening to the true health revealed podcast. We appreciate your time and hope you'll join us again for more information on today's episode and to subscribe to future pod. Please visit true health initiative.org. And to help us continue the fight against fake facts, please consider donating to our nonprofit true health initiative.[00:44:00] .