Blog

When it comes to climate breakdown, methane is the fast-acting accelerant that almost nobody in power wants to talk about, especially not the corporations profiting from animal use. While world leaders mouth empty pledges about staying below 1.5°C, the dairy industry is busy pumping out one of the most potent greenhouse gases we know of, then denying, distracting, or outright ignoring their role in it.According to <a data-mce-href="https://changingmarkets.org/report/running-latte/" href="https://changingmarkets.org/report/running-latte/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">new analysis</a> by the Changing Markets Foundation, some of the biggest names in dairy and retail, including Nestlé, Arla, Starbucks, and Danone, are doing next to nothing to tackle methane emissions. Despite accounting for 32% of global methane output, the animal agriculture industry continues to receive a free pass, protected by PR, voluntary schemes, and an almost religious commitment to business as usual.Methane doesn’t hang around. It’s about 80 times more powerful than CO₂ over a 20-year period, but it breaks down faster. Which means if we wanted to make a dent in the climate emergency quickly, methane would be the target. And yet the companies sitting on this “rare lever” for change are actively avoiding it. Out of 20 major dairy producers and coffee chains surveyed, worth a combined $420 billion, only one (Danone) has set a target specifically for methane. One.Nestlé is notable for at least saying people should consume less dairy, yet still hasn’t committed to reducing its own sales. Starbucks? Their biggest source of emissions in the US is dairy, and they still charge extra for plant-based milks. Dunkin’ scored a perfect zero for its methane denialism. And the UK’s own Froneri refused to even acknowledge livestock as a climate issue.Almost every company surveyed said methane is a problem, but just two claimed to have actually reduced emissions. Not one has pledged to sell less dairy. Instead, they lean on technical tweaks, like feed additives and biogas, to give the illusion of progress, while continuing to breed and exploit animals on an industrial scale. These are not climate solutions. They are delay tactics.This collective cowardice is especially telling considering these companies helped launch the Dairy Methane Action Alliance (DMAA) at COP28, a supposed industry initiative to deal with emissions. But when researchers compared DMAA members to non-members, the difference was marginal. Only three of the eight members have published methane targets of any kind. A PR stunt disguised as progress.Even those who monitor emissions don’t want to share the results. Only six of the 20 companies even track their methane output directly. Just four of them make those figures public. This is what transparency looks like in an industry built on secrecy and control.The report makes one thing clear: voluntary action has failed. Fine words and vague climate targets aren’t reducing emissions, they’re buying time for a dying system to keep profiting. As Changing Markets CEO Nusa Urbancic puts it, “Governments must finally grab the bull by the horns and set science-based methane cuts for the agricultural sector.” But they won’t, because powerful meat and dairy lobbies are actively sabotaging efforts to regulate methane in both the US and the EU. These corporations are pouring more money into public relations than actual solutions.It’s not just climate damage. It’s calculated deception. And the dairy industry’s hands are covered in it, from stolen milk and dead calves to a warming planet and a misinformed public. They’ve sold us the lie of “sustainable dairy” while refusing to make even the most basic changes to their operations.The truth is simple: dairy production is one of the most effective levers we have to cut methane, and the people in charge won’t touch it. Why? Because they’d rather destroy the planet than give up profit.If you're serious about climate justice, start by rejecting dairy. Then demand that governments stop shielding the industry from scrutiny. Don’t get distracted by emissions from transport or recycling tips from billionaires. Methane from animal farming is the fire. It's burning now. And it’s being fuelled by every latte, yoghurt, and cheese sandwich sold under the illusion of normality.We don’t need better dairy. We need to stop using animals. This isn’t about targets. It’s about truth. And the truth is: silence on methane is complicity.

Got Methane?

People love to say “plant-based diets are a trend.” But trends fade. This isn’t a trend — it’s a stalled revolution. Despite all the evidence, public interest, and available alternatives, we’re still dragging our feet. And the fault doesn’t lie with individual consumers. It lies with an industry that resists change, a medical system that fails to educate, and a culture clinging to habits over health, justice, and sense.Let’s break it down. Most People Want to Change — So Why Aren’t They?A <a data-mce-href="https://gfieurope.org/resource/2025-germany-uk-plant-based-dynamics-motivations-consumers/" href="https://gfieurope.org/resource/2025-germany-uk-plant-based-dynamics-motivations-consumers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new study</a> surveying nearly 5,000 adults in the UK and Germany shows a huge portion of the population is actively trying to eat fewer animal-based products. A full 38% plan to eat more plant-based food. 51% want to either reduce their meat and dairy intake, increase their plant intake — or both. These aren’t vegans. They’re just people trying to make better choices.And yet, most of them aren’t succeeding.The data shows that despite wanting to eat more plant-based foods, people fall back into old habits. Why? Because meat and dairy are familiar, and everywhere. Plant-based foods, in comparison, are seen as less convenient, harder to cook, and <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Psychology-Behind-Anti-Veganism-S6S01DYIEJ" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Psychology-Behind-Anti-Veganism-S6S01DYIEJ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">less socially accepted</a>. People say they like the taste of meat and dairy more — if they can honestly <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/You-Cant-Taste-the-Difference-So-Why-Are-Animal-A0A81DUIJ4" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/You-Cant-Taste-the-Difference-So-Why-Are-Animal-A0A81DUIJ4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tell the difference.&nbsp;</a>It’s not about taste. It’s about trust, identity, and access. If you’ve grown up thinking a proper meal includes meat, it takes more than tofu to change your mind.So here’s the industry’s job: make plant-based food not just available, but normal. Make it feel like everyday food, not an ethical experiment. Until then, even people with good intentions will keep reaching for the same old thing. “Processed” Plant-Based Food Isn’t the Enemy — Misinformation Is<a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Ultra-Processed-Is-Just-a-Distraction-F2F01E4GJ5" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Ultra-Processed-Is-Just-a-Distraction-F2F01E4GJ5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Now let’s talk about the “processed” myth</a>.One of the most effective ways people get scared away from plant-based food is through the weaponisation of the word “processed.” As if people aren’t already living on processed animal products — sausages, cheese, chicken nuggets, spam, yoghurt, you name it. No one’s checking how processed their bacon is. But throw the word “processed” at a soy burger, and suddenly it’s Frankenstein food.A <a data-mce-href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-025-01148-5" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-025-01148-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new study</a> out of Finland dismantles this nonsense. It shows that the level of processing in plant-based proteins isn’t the problem — it’s how they’re processed and what nutrients remain. For example, tempeh — a fermented soy product — retains tons of beneficial compounds like isoflavonoids. Meanwhile, soy protein isolates, often found in protein bars or mock meats, contain far less.So should we write off mock meats? No. Because even when they’re made with concentrates or isolates, they still remove animal products from the food chain — and that alone is a win for health, animals, and the planet. The real issue isn’t whether a food is “processed.” It’s whether it’s nutrient-dense, ethically produced, and free from animal exploitation.Cooking is processing. Freezing is processing. Making bread is processing. If we want to get real about health, we need to drop the propaganda and look at what we’re actually eating — and who it cost. Doctors Know Plant-Based Diets Work. So Why Won’t They Say So?Here’s where things really fall apart: health professionals know plant-based diets are effective. A <a data-mce-href="https://pcrm.widen.net/s/l2kldfm9gs/pcrm-mc-vegan-prevalence-survey-4.28.25" href="https://pcrm.widen.net/s/l2kldfm9gs/pcrm-mc-vegan-prevalence-survey-4.28.25" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">new US survey</a> shows that half of adults already believe going plant-based can improve their health and reduce disease risk. Two-thirds said they’d consider switching — if they were given the right guidance. And yet, just 1 in 5 primary care providers ever mention it to their patients.Why?Because most doctors aren’t trained in nutrition. In the UK, three-quarters of dietitians wrongly think plant-based proteins are “incomplete.” In the US, plant-based nutrition is rarely included in medical education unless students seek it out themselves.We have a public health system that’s overwhelmed, underfunded, and drowning in chronic disease — and it won’t even tell people about one of the most effective solutions available. Studies continue to show that plant-based diets can lower the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and even some cancers. They also lower healthcare costs. So why the silence?Because money talks, tradition screams, and animals are ignored. It’s easier to push pills and procedures than it is to challenge a lifetime of steak dinners and “drink your milk” conditioning. What’s Really Holding People Back?People are surrounded by mixed messages and systemic barriers. According to the GFI Europe report, people want to reduce their animal use, but they're confused. One group is focused on weight loss. Another wants more fibre and protein. Another is just trying to cut back on meat and dairy.What unites them all is that they’ve been left to figure it out on their own. And surprise — most people don’t have the time, money, or energy to run a private nutrition investigation while juggling bills, family, and a broken food system.This is where the food industry, health professionals, and policy-makers need to wake up.If you want people to eat differently, stop treating plants like an exotic option and start building them into everyday systems. Put plant-based meals in schools, hospitals, and offices. Train GPs and nurses. Make healthy, ethical food normal — not niche.Stop presenting plant-based sausages like sad imitations and start showing them as what they really are: a future without blood. The Bigger Picture: Health, Climate, and JusticeThis isn’t just about consumer trends. This is about survival.Plant-based diets aren’t just good for individuals — they’re essential for the planet. Study after study confirms that replacing animal products with plant-based foods slashes emissions, land use, and water waste. It's a key solution to climate collapse.But it’s also about justice.Every bite of meat, dairy, or eggs comes from a system that views individuals as property. That forcibly breeds, imprisons, mutilates, and kills them. The fact that these products contribute to disease and environmental destruction is the poisoned cherry on top.So when people want to shift but aren’t supported, it’s not just a public health failure. It’s a failure of ethics, education, and leadership. What Needs to Happen Now:Stop lying about “processed” food. Context matters. Nutritional content matters. The label doesn’t tell the whole story.Train health professionals. If someone’s willing to go plant-based for their health, the least a doctor can do is not sabotage them with outdated nonsense.Normalise plant-based eating. Not as a diet. Not as a lifestyle. As a default.Make plant-based food delicious and familiar. Enough with the sad salads and overpriced chickpea patties. Give people food that feels like food.Use messaging that works. If someone wants to lose weight or build muscle, show them how to do that without contributing to slaughter.Most people already know the truth: plant-based food is better for them, better for the planet, and doesn’t require killing someone else. But until we dismantle the barriers — confusion, stigma, habit, misinformation, and institutional silence — good intentions will keep dying in the supermarket aisle. The demand is there.Now where’s the support?

Why Aren’t We Eating More Plants?

Wikie and Keijo aren’t characters in a dystopian novel. They’re not CGI creations meant to pull at your heartstrings. They’re real individuals, still breathing — just. Trapped in a decaying concrete tank in a theme park that closed months ago, abandoned like broken fairground rides.&nbsp;Marineland Antibes shut its gates in January 2025. It forgot to unlock one. The orca enclosure remains sealed — not to the public, but to freedom. Wikie, 23, and her son Keijo, 11, are circling the same stagnant pool they’ve been circling their entire lives. Every echo in that tank is one they’ve heard before. Every surface has been scraped with their frustration, every turn another pointless lap in a race to nowhere.But of course, the tragedy isn’t just abandonment. It’s that they were there in the first place.These orcas were born in captivity. Not just born — bred. Manufactured by an industry that sees wild, intelligent, social beings as programmable performers. And when the crowds stopped coming, the lights switched off, and the money dried up, Wikie and Keijo weren’t “freed.” They were warehoused.Because that’s what happens when living beings are property. When they’re someone’s asset, not someone. France’s legacyThe last two captive orcas in the country, rotting in their own chlorinated prison, green algae crawling up the pool walls while caretakers clock in just long enough to throw fish and tick a legal box. No stimulation. No plan. Just biological maintenance.The park’s owners now say the orcas must “leave now” — not out of compassion, but because even they admit the place is falling apart. Their bodies are outlasting their enclosure. But not by much.Their pod is already gone. Moana died in 2023. Inouk ingested a tiny piece of metal in 2024 and died a grotesque death no one in charge wants to talk about. And now Wikie and Keijo wait for their turn. No TanksA scientific panel recently blocked a proposed transfer of Wikie and Keijo to Tenerife’s Loro Parque — not because captivity is the problem, but because the next tank wasn’t quite big enough. Another plan, involving a Japanese park, was scrapped too. The conversation isn’t “Should they be captive?” It’s “Where’s the least-bad prison?”Imagine the absurdity: these beings, who can swim 100 miles a day in the open ocean, are being denied transfer to another tank because the new cell fails to meet size guidelines. Nobody’s talking about ocean freedom. Just better containment.Canada’s Whale Sanctuary Project promises 100 acres of sea, enclosed but expansive. Finally, space to move. Finally, something beyond concrete and walls. But the sanctuary isn’t ready, and the clock is ticking. Keijo and Wikie don’t have five years for a sanctuary that hasn’t put “a stick in the ground.”They have now. Or not at all.How did we get here?It’s not just poor management. It’s not just lack of funding. It’s not even just bureaucratic incompetence. It’s the mindset. The very idea that these animals are ours to confine, breed, sell, perform, and discard.&nbsp;People like to ask why they can’t be released into the wild. But you don’t get to destroy someone’s mind, deny them their culture, their family, their freedom — and then blame them for not knowing how to survive without you.We are in the golden age of animal cognition science — and the stone age of animal ethics.We’ve spent decades proving dolphins and orcas are sentient, self-aware, emotionally complex. That they grieve. That they name each other. That they teach their children. That their communication is structured, meaningful, and <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/15/us-scientists-who-deciphered-dolphin-whistles-win-prize-for-animal-communication" href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/15/us-scientists-who-deciphered-dolphin-whistles-win-prize-for-animal-communication" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">possibly translatable</a>.But what’s the use of a translated scream, if we still ignore it?What’s the point of decoding dolphin distress calls, while 12 bottlenose dolphins languish in another tank at Marineland, right next to the orcas, with no plan and no future?What are we saying to them — and what are they saying to each other — as the walls crumble and the water darkens?You don’t need a PhD to know that captivity kills. You just need eyes. Aerial footage from Tidebreakers shows a rotting facility: green scum creeping along the edges of tanks, brown water stagnating in half-drained pools. Orcas and dolphins aren’t immune to infection, to boredom, to despair.They are dying — mentally first, physically second.Wikie and Keijo are now the poster animals not just for captivity, but for abandonment.&nbsp;For what it looks like when society creates a problem, and then dithers about how inconvenient the solution might be.There is no justification left. No more shows. No more ticket sales. No more excuses. Just two orcas pacing their prison, waiting for someone — anyone — to treat them as something other than a problem to be solved.Here’s the choice:Do we want to be the species that figured out how to talk to dolphins — while ignoring everything they were already saying? Or do we finally listen, not just with machines, but with morality? Set them free — not just from Marineland, but from the mindset that put them there in the first place.

Wikie and Keijo Are Still Trapped

When Zoe Rosenberg stepped onto a Petaluma slaughterhouse truck in June 2023 and removed four sick, dying chickens, she wasn’t stealing. She was rescuing. But in the upside-down world of animal agriculture, rescuing the oppressed is a crime, while those inflicting the violence go unchallenged.For this act of compassion, Rosenberg faces up to five years behind bars.The chickens, branded by the industry as “free-range” and by the legal system as “property”, were bruised, battered, and infected with parasites. Left there, they would have been killed for profit. Rosenberg did what any decent person would do if they saw a neglected dog on the side of the road: she intervened.But unlike dogs, chickens have no meaningful legal protections. In fact, in the U.S., they’re not even covered under the pathetically limited Humane Slaughter Act. Factory farms can, and do, subject them to systemic neglect and suffering, all while hiding behind happy-sounding labels and marketing lies.Rosenberg, a Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) activist, presented evidence of cruelty to the Petaluma Police. She documented animals too weak to stand, left to die slowly on filthy floors, and animals being boiled alive in slaughterhouses. She handed that evidence over, again and again, and got the same response activists everywhere have come to expect: nothing.Not only did the police ignore the abuse, they turned their attention to Rosenberg, eventually arresting her on multiple charges, including felony conspiracy.The message is clear: the crime isn’t animal cruelty, it’s exposing it.Petaluma Police didn’t even bother to investigate Rosenberg’s allegations. They didn’t visit the farm. They didn’t review the footage. They didn’t seize the dead and dying animals. They served Rosenberg an arrest warrant instead.Why? Follow the money. Petaluma has built its economy on chickens. It was once the self-declared “egg basket of the world.” Today, it’s still home to millions of birds trapped inside industrial farms that the local police happily celebrate in community festivals. There’s no clearer example of the fox guarding the henhouse.Open rescue, removing suffering animals from exploitation and refusing to hide while doing so, has been a staple of the animal rights movement since the 1980s. But it terrifies the industry because it cuts through the PR. It shows the public what’s really happening behind closed doors.The industry calls it theft. Activists call it rescue. The public, when shown the footage, tends to agree with the rescuers.Even courts sometimes do. In recent years, DxE activists have been acquitted after rescuing piglets from Smithfield and chickens from Foster Farms. The legal system might be rigged, but cracks are forming.Still, prosecutors will throw everything they can at activists like Rosenberg, because they need to make an example out of those who refuse to look the other way. They need to scare people into thinking that rescuing a chicken is a bigger crime than boiling one alive.Petaluma Poultry, owned by Perdue, sells itself as a paragon of “humane” farming. Their website boasts of chickens “free to be chickens” in “low-stress environments.”But undercover footage tells a different story: birds collapsed on filthy floors, unable to reach food or water. Chickens butchered alive. Chickens boiled alive. Over a thousand birds in one day discarded as unfit for human consumption due to suspected blood poisoning.This isn’t a few bad apples. This is the system working exactly as designed.Petaluma Poultry is not the exception. It’s the rule. The entire chicken industry runs on lies, breeding animals so unnaturally large they can barely stand, let alone survive in the conditions they’re forced into.Labels like “free-range” are nothing more than corporate greenwashing, slapped on products to soothe consumer guilt while the animals rot in misery.Rosenberg’s actions fall under the legal principle of necessity, breaking a law to prevent a greater harm. It’s the same argument that’s been used to justify breaking into a car to save a dog left to bake in the sun.But the court system, like the police, is built to protect property, not victims. In this case, the victims are chickens, and the property belongs to a billion-dollar industry.Prosecutors know this. They know the moment they acknowledge Rosenberg’s argument in court, they open the door to hundreds, if not thousands, of similar cases. They don’t want that precedent. They want Rosenberg silenced.While Rosenberg waits for her trial, the chickens she saved are thriving at a sanctuary. Meanwhile, the slaughterhouse that left them to suffer continues business as usual. Not one worker has been arrested for torture. Not one executive faces charges for systemic neglect.In this system, rescuing victims is criminal. Abusing them is business.That’s the world Rosenberg, and activists like her, are fighting to change. A world where chickens aren’t property. A world where the crime is the abuse, not the rescue.And if the price of fighting for that world is jail time? Rosenberg has made her choice clear.“A few years of my freedom,” she says, “is worth less than even one animal’s life.”Would you risk your freedom to do what’s right? Because Rosenberg already has.

Why Zoe Rosenberg Faces Prison for Saving Lives

Another baby born into captivity, and another round of applause for the people keeping her there.<a data-mce-href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9ygew7yn2o.amp" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9ygew7yn2o.amp" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">West Midlands Safari Park is celebrating the birth of an Indian rhinoceros calf,</a> calling it a success story for a species pushed to the brink of extinction. But behind the cheery headlines and carefully edited press releases lies a brutal truth: this baby will likely never experience freedom, never know what it's like to live in the wild, and never develop the skills she needs to survive outside the boundaries of her enclosure. She has been born into a life sentence, her existence reduced to an exhibit, not a life.This isn’t conservation. It’s reproduction for display.The Indian rhino, listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, faces genuine threats in the wild: poaching, habitat loss, human conflict. But this calf wasn’t rescued from any of that. She was bred, on purpose, into confinement. Her half-brother, born at the same park in 2020, is still there. They call this a lineage. Let’s call it what it is: generational imprisonment. Captivity Doesn’t Teach SurvivalSupporters of captive breeding programmes like to talk about "preserving species." But what does preservation mean when the individuals bred into existence never learn how to live independently? Being bottle-fed and born into sterile, artificial environments doesn’t prepare animals for the wild, it prepares them for a life of dependence, boredom, and behavioural dysfunction.Rhinos raised in safari parks or zoos are separated from predators, stripped of foraging challenges, and socially isolated from the complex herd dynamics they would navigate in the wild. They do not learn migration patterns. They do not learn survival strategies. They learn, instead, to wait for humans to feed them, clean them, and medically intervene when nature dares to act unpredictably, as it did here, with a breech birth.If these animals were truly being prepared for release, why aren’t they ever released? The truth is, they rarely are. Reintroduction is expensive, risky, and complicated. Far easier, and far more profitable, is to keep breeding them and call it conservation while raking in the gate fees from visitors snapping photos of a species they’ll never see roaming free.All genuine repopulation efforts for Indian rhinos have taken place in their native habitats, India and Nepal, not in UK safari parks breeding animals with no plan for release. Animals Are Not Museum PiecesLet’s be blunt: a rhino is not a “win” just because she exists. She’s not a product. Her life shouldn’t be measured in PR value or crowd-drawing potential. Conservation without freedom is not conservation at all, it’s stockpiling bodies. Keeping animals in captivity doesn’t honour the wild, it replaces it with a simulation. We’re building a future where animals survive only under our control, for our entertainment.Every time an endangered animal is bred into captivity without a plan to reintroduce them into a safe, wild habitat, we are choosing control over coexistence. We are choosing to manage and manipulate rather than protect and respect. And we are continuing a cycle of supremacism that says animals belong in enclosures if we decide it's safer for them there, even if the enclosure lasts a lifetime. “At Least She’s Safe”That’s the justification, isn’t it? At least she’s safe. But safety without autonomy is a prison. We wouldn’t call it a life worth living if it were us. Would we applaud being born into a room we could never leave, fed on someone else’s schedule, prodded by curious strangers, monitored by CCTV, and used to educate people who will forget our name the minute they reach the gift shop?The choice between death and a caged life isn’t a choice at all, it’s a tragedy disguised as mercy. And it's one we seem far too comfortable making on behalf of others who cannot refuse it. Don’t Confuse Breeding with SavingBreeding animals into captivity without any plan for release isn’t about saving a species. It’s about justifying continued use. If these rhinos weren’t endangered, no one would care about their births. The celebration only exists because the suffering of the species gives the captors moral cover.This calf didn’t need to be born to be saved. She was born because she could be used to make us feel like heroes.&nbsp;There are real solutions to protect Indian rhinos: protecting wild habitats, fighting poaching with technology and boots on the ground, collaborating with communities in India and Nepal who live alongside rhinos and understand their needs. But that kind of work is slow, inconvenient, and doesn’t come with photo ops or press releases.Captive births, on the other hand, are easy wins. Easy headlines. Easy money. A Newborn, Already a CommodityBefore she took her first steps, this rhino calf was a story. A statistic. A justification. Her mother, Sunny, endured a high-risk, human-assisted birth so that we could call this a conservation milestone. But whose milestone is it? Certainly not hers. She’s not free. She’s not wild. She’s not even anonymous, her entire life will be tracked, managed, displayed, and likely used to breed more confined lives.And what if she can’t breed? Will she be moved from park to park? Will she spend her life alone if no "suitable mate" can be found? These are the questions we rarely ask about individual animals because we’re too busy pretending that every captive birth is a step forward for the species. But a species is made of individuals. And if their lives are reduced to spectacle and stagnation, there’s nothing worth celebrating. Freedom Is the PointThis isn’t a rejection of all aid or all intervention. Animals sometimes need help. But if we take them in, it should be with one goal: release. If release is impossible, then we owe them sanctuary, not captivity. Not breeding. Not use. Sanctuary is built around the needs of the individual, not the demands of the public. Captivity is the opposite.We’re facing an ecological crisis of our own making. And our answer to it cannot be to lock animals behind fences and pretend the problem is solved. A rhino born into confinement is not a symbol of hope. She’s a warning. A reflection of just how far we’ve gone in deciding that control is more important than freedom, even for those we claim to protect.She doesn’t need congratulations. She needs justice. And she’s not going to get it at a safari park.

Indian Rhino Calf: Born Into a Life Sentence

George Monbiot has done what industry-funded spin merchants hope no one will: actually read the reports. His latest piece in <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/07/cattle-sheep-farming-sustainable-food" href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/07/cattle-sheep-farming-sustainable-food" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">The Guardian</a> takes aim at two new attempts to dress up cattle and sheep farming as climate solutions. One is funded by McDonald’s. The other is backed by King Charles’s dairy advisor. Both are padded with vague language, dodgy numbers, and a generous helping of rural romanticism.Monbiot dismantles them both, line by line. And he’s right to. Because when “net zero” claims rely on three poorly sampled fields and a bunch of missing data, they’re not environmental reports, they’re marketing campaigns.The first study, from FAI Farms, makes the grand claim that the operation is “beyond net zero”, that it absorbs more carbon than it emits. But scratch the surface and there’s nothing underneath. Just three fields were sampled out of 105, and one had its sample locations changed partway through. One brought in hay from elsewhere, carbon imported. One was ploughed and reseeded, introducing unaccounted-for variables. And one didn’t even bother measuring soil bulk density the first time round, so you can’t compare results. By the time you remove all the statistical noise, there’s nothing left. No usable data. Just headlines.Even the authors admit, buried in the full report, that the tests aren’t representative. But of course that bit doesn’t make it into the glossy executive summary or the PR push. Because this was never about accuracy, it was about optics. McDonald’s needed something to point to when people asked uncomfortable questions about climate destruction. FAI Farms obliged.The second report comes from the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT), run by Patrick Holden, King Charles’s farming advisor and a long-time promoter of “regenerative” livestock systems. Their pitch? A nationwide transition to grazing cattle and sheep on “temporary meadows” (leys), rotated with crop production. Eat less pork and chicken, they say, and more beef and lamb. The most climate-damaging flesh available, in other words.This model, they claim, will help fight climate change, restore biodiversity, and deliver social benefits. It just happens to require permanently higher food prices, a prescriptive national diet, and a fantasy 50% reduction in food waste. But don’t worry, they’ve “assumed” that all of this will work out just fine. No need to think too hard about it.Holden himself admits food prices would soar under this model. The report’s solution? Everyone in the UK should simply eat less, waste nothing, and embrace a whole new set of dietary rules. Grain output would drop dramatically, yet they claim no extra imports would be needed. Meanwhile, cows and sheep, some of the least efficient converters of plant calories into food, would somehow need only “a small amount” of supplementary feed. No numbers. Just vibes.It’s the same tactic we’ve seen time and time again: present a fantasy, bury the problems in footnotes, and hope people are too tired, too confused, or too nostalgic to notice the sleight of hand.Monbiot calls it what it is: lobbying. Dressed up in green. Promoted by billion-dollar fast-food chains and members of the royal family. All pushing the idea that animal farming isn’t just harmless, it’s helpful.The reality is the opposite. Cattle and sheep are two of the most environmentally destructive animals humans farm. They require vast amounts of land, emit methane, degrade ecosystems, and block rewilding. Their grazing prevents the return of native forests and wetlands, critical carbon sinks that could actually help slow climate collapse. Dartmoor, recently set ablaze in a fire that never should’ve been possible, is just one example of a landscape degraded by centuries of grazing. Without the animals, it might be temperate rainforest. Instead, it’s kindling.But this isn’t about science. It’s about storytelling. “Regenerative” is the new buzzword, the latest rebranding of the same old violence and destruction. It appeals to a public desperate for good news, especially if that good news tells them they don’t have to change.The meat and dairy industries know exactly what they’re doing. Monbiot references Brandolini’s law, the idea that it takes ten times the effort to debunk lies as it does to spread them. These industries exploit that. They flood the media with soft-focus images of cows in green fields and reports filled with technical-sounding nonsense, knowing it’ll be shared long before anyone reads the methodology.This is greenwashing, plain and simple. Just like the fossil fuel industry that told us climate change could be solved with better lightbulbs and clean coal, the animal agriculture lobby wants us to believe that the solution is more of the same, with slightly different branding.Monbiot has flaws, and we’ve called him out before. But credit where it’s due: this article cuts through the nonsense. It names the industries, names the tactics, and names the damage.And it reminds us of the truth that needs repeating: you don’t graze your way out of ecological collapse. You don’t solve a crisis by clinging to the very thing that caused it. And you don’t “regenerate” a planet by breeding animals into existence, feeding them crops, slaughtering them, and pretending the grass grew back fast enough to make it all okay.This isn’t sustainability. It’s delay. It’s distraction. It’s derailment.The climate can’t afford more “solutions” that rely on nostalgia, denial, and wishful thinking. It’s time to stop pretending that the answer lies in better animal use. The answer is obvious. We just need the will, and the honesty, to say it: End animal farming.

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

Got Methane?

Why Aren’t We Eating More Plants?

Wikie and Keijo Are Still Trapped

Why Zoe Rosenberg Faces Prison for Saving Lives

Indian Rhino Calf: Born Into a Life Sentence

The Crown, the Clown, and the Whopper