Fossil Fuels Are Bad, Animal Agriculture Is Worse

For years, the world has been sold a simple story: fossil fuels are the biggest driver of climate change. But a new analysis, published in Environmental Research Letters, turns that on its head. According to Gerard Wedderburn-Bisshop, a former Australian government environmental scientist, animal agriculture is actually the primary driver - responsible for 53% of global average temperature rise between 1750 and 2020. Fossil fuels? Just 19%.  

This isn’t some fringe claim. It’s built on advances in greenhouse gas accounting that expose how outdated methods have underestimated the true impact of deforestation and methane emissions. 

Herbivore Club has maintained for years that widely claimed figures like "14.5%" are absurdly low given how big a role deforestation plays.

The Numbers Don’t Lie - They’ve Just Been Ignored  

Traditional emissions accounting lets industries off the hook. Fossil fuel emissions are counted in full, but deforestation is only counted partially, under the excuse that regrowth offsets emissions. Meanwhile, all emissions - whether from fossil fuels or cow burps - are absorbed by growing vegetation, yet only some sectors are given credit for this. Apply a consistent accounting method, and suddenly the numbers shift.  

Wedderburn-Bisshop’s paper shows that animal agriculture’s emissions from land use change alone put it 19% ahead of fossil fuels. That’s before even getting into the methane problem.

Methane’s Real Impact - Not What the Industry Wants You to Believe  

For decades, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has used Global Warming Potential (GWP) to compare emissions. But Wedderburn-Bisshop argues this metric underestimates methane’s warming power. Instead, his study uses Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF) - the best available science on how greenhouse gases actually heat the planet.  

Why does this matter? Because the livestock industry has been pushing for alternative metrics that downplay methane. Methane is short-lived compared to CO₂, but its warming effect is intense. When you use ERF instead of industry-friendly accounting tricks, you get a brutally clear picture: methane's cumulative impact has been vastly underestimated.  

Fossil Fuels Have a Built-In "Cooling Effect" - That’s Disappearing 

Here’s something rarely discussed: fossil fuel burning actually masks some of its own warming. That’s because burning coal and oil releases cooling aerosols alongside CO₂. These aerosols don’t last long, but while they’re in the atmosphere, they artificially lower the planet’s temperature. When you include this in the numbers, you get:  

- Fossil fuels: 0.79°C warming, but 0.59°C cooling, making the net warming effect smaller.  

- Animal agriculture: 0.86°C warming, with only 0.13°C cooling, almost nothing to offset the damage.

The Policy Shift We Actually Need  

So what does this mean for climate action? If we’re serious about stopping global heating, we need to stop pretending that emissions from deforestation are “temporary” and that methane isn’t a huge problem. This means:

1. Recognising deforestation emissions as equivalent to burning fossil fuels - because they are.  

2. Ending land use for animal agriculture, because it’s the biggest driver of land destruction.  

3. Applying ERF across all climate policies - because anything else is just more greenwashing.  

Wedderburn-Bisshop puts it bluntly: "The destruction of forests should be seen the same way as burning coal."

Why This Matters for Gen Z - and the Future of Climate Action

If young people are the future, they need the truth. A new study by Faunalytics and Good Growth Co shows that Gen Z cares about the environment - but they’re not being told the full story.

The research, which surveyed young people in the US, Indonesia, Thailand, and China, found that most believe society isn’t doing enough to protect animals or the planet. But their focus is skewed - companion animals and wild species get some attention, while farmed animals are rarely mentioned.

This is a direct result of misinformation. The same system that pushes “14.5% of emissions” is also burying the role of animal agriculture in climate destruction. Meanwhile, studies show that Gen Z is leading the plantbased shift. A 2023 poll found they are the biggest drivers of the plant-based market, and 14% of Gen Z adults in the US already identify as vegan or vegetarian.

That’s double the previous generation’s numbers, and yet, climate policy still centres on fossil fuels while ignoring the biggest climate threat: the food system.

The Choices Ahead

This debate isn’t just academic. The choices we make now determine the planet’s future. The IPCC has already acknowledged that different emissions metrics lead to different policy outcomes. Governments and industries choose how they frame emissions - and so far, they’ve chosen to shield animal agriculture. 

Wedderburn-Bisshop’s research makes it clear: if we count emissions honestly, the biggest culprit isn’t oil or gas - it’s the global exploitation of animals for food. Fossil fuels must go. But the future isn’t just about clean energy.

The climate crisis won’t be solved in a supermarket aisle, but what’s on the shelves matters. The next generation is ready for change. The question is whether politicians and climate scientists are willing to tell the truth.