By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Kathleen Shannon for Wyoming News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Elon Musk recently appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, where he discussed everything from the benefits of sleep to gaming. But the conversation quickly shifted to meat, and led to a brief exchange - based on misinformation, rather than facts - that beef does not have a climate impact. Given the show's huge reach and Musk's newfound political influence, the exchange is worth unpacking and fact-checking.

Musk, who was once considered environmentally forward due to his work with electric vehicles, has a notably different stance when it comes to the climate implications of beef. In fact, Musk has tweeted that farming has no impact on climate change, and that killing "some cows" won't make a difference for the environment.

In reality, meat production and consumption are responsible for between 12 and just under 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. It is also a constant drain on our planet's water and land reserves.

Musk's suggestion otherwise reflects his ongoing dismissal of the environmental concerns surrounding animal agriculture. This is particularly concerning given his close relationship with President-elect Donald Trump, who recently appointed Musk to co-lead the new Department of Government Efficiency. Musk and Trump have had public discussions about climate change, with Musk once again downplaying the urgency of global warming by stating, "we don't need to rush" when it comes to addressing the climate crisis.

"The constant barrage of misinformation - spread through ads, inaccurate alternative news programming, and uninformed podcasters and social media influencers - can create an illusory truth effect where repetition makes false claims seem credible," Michelle Amazeen, a professor of mass communication at Boston University, and part of the university's Climate Disinformation Initiative, told Sentient in an email.

Musk's comments on the podcast, though brief, sidestep the growing body of evidence of the significant role the livestock industry plays when it comes to climate change. Let's dissect their exchange, and take a closer look at how two extremely influential men are representing this issue.

What Rogan Got (Almost) Right

Setting the scene, the conversation on animal agriculture started off with a one-off comment from Rogan about the carnivore diet, and how people dismiss it because of "propaganda" against animal agriculture.

Rogan: There is a lot of propaganda that put this thing out there that animal agriculture is the number one contributor to global warming.

Musk: It's rubbish, it's bullshit, it doesn't matter.

Rogan: Not only is it hot bullshit, but the real problem is factory farming. Regenerative farming is carbon neutral.

Rogan is technically correct that animal agriculture is not the number one contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, the EPA puts the transportation sector as the higher contributor, responsible for 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

Factory farming is also an important facet of the issue, as Rogan points out. Since 99 percent of the meat we eat comes from factory farms, impacts from animal agriculture are, by default, attributable to factory farming.

Here's where things go awry: despite Rogan's claim, research shows regenerative farming does not make meat carbon neutral. While it does appear to have some soil health benefits, according to the research, getting carbon to stay put in agricultural soils has not panned out (again, by the research). Factory farming, which operates on a more efficient scale, actually tends to result in lower emissions per unit of meat produced, though the tradeoff is living conditions tend to be worse for animal welfare.

Beyond direct climate pollution, factory farming is responsible for a range of other environmental problems and public health risks. Industrial animal agriculture is a leading cause of water contamination, as runoff from animal waste often ends up in rivers and groundwater, polluting drinking water supplies.

Factory farming is also a key driver of antibiotic resistance, which contributes to the rise of drug-resistant pathogens that threaten human health. These farms are often linked to disease outbreaks, including avian flu, as overcrowded conditions make it easier for diseases to spread from animal to animal and, in some cases, to humans.

All that said, research has shown that changing the way we produce meat to a more land-intensive approach like organic or regenerative (what some call "better meat") would be worse for climate change, not better, even if it might result in some important improvements, to soil health and animal welfare, for example. No matter the method, there is no getting around the urgent need for people in the Global North to reduce their meat consumption in order to stave off the worst global warming scenarios.

What Both Elon Musk and Rogan Got Very Wrong

The exchange went on:

Musk: The animals aren't going to make any difference to global warming. Zero percent, nothing...

It's not gonna make any difference to global warming or the CO2 concentration atmosphere, really, if people eat pure steaks, it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. Irrelevant. I wanted to be super clear about that. Yeah, it will not matter. You will not even be able to measure it. Okay, that's how irrelevant it is.

This statement is patently incorrect.

As already stated, livestock farming contributes between 12 and 19.6 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a range of studies. These figures come from peer-reviewed research conducted by experts in the field, such as the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which uses comprehensive methods to estimate emissions from different sources in the agriculture sector, including enteric fermentation (methane from digestion) and manure management. The lower estimate - 12 percent - comes from an FAO report, but more recent studies by the FAO and its partners suggest livestock emissions could be higher, depending on research methods.

Musk's claim that the impact of meat consumption is "irrelevant" fails to account for these significant potential reductions in emissions. Even reducing global meat consumption a few days a week would result in substantial environmental benefits.

While plant-based meat can help facilitate this transition, the plant-based protein industry is another point of contention for figures like Musk and Rogan - which leads to another part of their exchange that was also incorrect.

Rogan: Do you think that is just propaganda because of people that have a vested interest in things like plant-based meat products and things along those lines? Green energy.

Musk: I think that's part of it. You know that you're only going to get people pushing to avoid meat, like some people, just maybe they go natural, just maybe they just like vegetarians or vegans or whatever ideological, ideological reasons.

In reality, the meat industry remains much bigger, and far more influential than any so-called plant-based propaganda. Plant-based meat sales have gone down in recent years, in part thanks to the meat industry campaigning against plant-based alternatives, labeling them as "ultra-processed." These efforts are designed to steer consumers back to traditional meat.

The meat industry has actively worked to shape public policy and perception through government programs, such as the beef and pork "checkoff" programs. These are initiatives funded by the meat industry to promote the consumption of beef and pork. One of the most famous examples is the "Beef. It's What's for Dinner." campaign, which has been running since 1992. These programs have been highly effective in bolstering the demand for meat, creating an environment where meat consumption is not just normal, but celebrated.

While the plant-based industry is still growing, it simply does not have the same resources to flood the media with messages aimed at shaping consumer behavior and policy in the same way the meat industry has and currently does.

Here is how the conversation on this topic ended between Musk and Rogan:

Rogan: Isn't it funny that is heretic speaking now. That's crazy talk now, nowadays it's like you have to say that we have to eat less meat. That meat is bad.

Musk: Totally eat as much meat as you want, it is not going to make a difference. And if somebody says it does make a difference, I'm like, how will you measure it? And if you can't even measure it, then it's bullshit.

In fact, there are many ways to measure emissions from meat production. The University of Wisconsin-Madison has outlined several methods, including the use of respiration chambers, which capture the gasses animals release during breathing, and the SF6 technique, a more advanced method where a tracer gas is used to measure methane emissions directly from livestock.

Another key tool in the field is the Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM). GLEAM is designed to analyze environmental factors like feed use, land use, greenhouse gas emissions and more. GLEAM's goal is to measure resources used during livestock production and then identify the environmental impacts of farming livestock, arriving at the 12 percent figure cited above.

Scientists Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemeck also took a deep dive into global food systems by analyzing 570 studies across 38,700 farms in 119 countries in 2018. They focused on five key environmental factors: land use, water use (factoring in local water scarcity), greenhouse gas emissions, acidification and eutrophication emissions. Their findings showed that food systems are responsible for about 26 percent of global emissions (a more recent study put the number at around a third), with meat production as the largest driver of food-related emissions, responsible for 57 percent of that sector's pollution.

These models are key to understanding the full scope of livestock's impact on the planet, something Musk and Rogan's dismissal of the issue fails to acknowledge.

The Bottom Line

The impact of the views expressed by Musk and Rogan are not insignificant - The Joe Rogan Experience attracts millions of listeners, and the episode in question alone has been watched over 16 million times on YouTube and viewed by over 51 million on X. It also represents the way misinformation can easily spread on the internet.

"Podcasts are also becoming an increasingly popular medium for news, with nearly half of U.S. adults having listened to at least one in the past month, according to Statista. Both presidential candidates tapped into this trend, appearing on influential podcasts such as Joe Rogan's and Howard Stern's," Amazeen writes to Sentient. "These alternative news sources often lack the commitment to journalistic principles like verification and accuracy."

Musk has also centered himself in the public discourse, now tapped for Trump's incoming administration. Given Trump's previous track record of downplaying climate issues, there is a strong possibility that Musk's views will reinforce the President-elect's views, and his continued support of the meat industry.


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Nina Misuraca Ignaczak for Planet Detroit.
Broadcast version by Chrystal Blair for Michigan News Connection for the Planet Detroit-Public News Service Collaboration.

Darwin Baas surveys Kent County’s landfill from the cab of a county truck, watching the steady arrival of waste-hauling vehicles dumping drywall, sofas, home clean-outs, and bagged leftovers tumbling out by the ton. An average of 800 of these trucks arrive every day. The South Kent Landfill — just outside Grand Rapids — is now about 95% full.

“Everything up here is going to try to kill you,” he tells visitors, gesturing toward the trash compactors and bulldozers weaving between soft spots of shifting debris. But it’s not just the machinery that makes this place dangerous — it’s the system itself, designed to make waste disappear with maximum convenience and minimum cost.

Baas, director of Kent County’s Department of Public Works, has spent the last 11 years trying to bend that system in a new direction. Under his leadership, Kent County has voluntarily captured methane from its landfill, continued to operate Michigan’s only municipal waste-to-energy incinerator, and proposed an ambitious Sustainable Business Park to divert food and yard waste, recover recyclables, and incubate circular economy businesses. 

But most of the county’s 600,000 tons of annual municipal solid waste still ends up here.

Kent County is among a minority of counties in Michigan managing waste through a publicly operated system. The vast majority of landfills statewide — 49 of 60 — are privately owned and profit-driven, further reinforcing the incentive to bury. Waste Management owns and operates dozens of landfills across Michigan. Baas sees this as a structural barrier to meaningful change.

“We need public-private partnerships,” he said. “The investments that need to be made are long-term — that’s not something the private sector is going to do on its own.”

The challenge Baas faces isn’t just operational — it’s systemic. As Michigan works to meet its climate goals, one of the most potent sources of greenhouse gas emissions is hiding in plain sight: landfills.

When food, yard waste, and other organic materials are buried, they decompose without oxygen and produce methane — a greenhouse gas that traps more than 80 times as much heat as carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Though less visible than smokestacks or tailpipes, landfills are among the state’s largest sources of methane emissions, trailing only the fossil fuel sector.

Michigan recently overhauled its solid waste law, in part to address methane leaks. But even with new rules on the books, economic incentives still favor the cheapest option: burying waste. 

Baas sees this as a core flaw in how Michigan manages its garbage — and a missed opportunity. In Kent County, he’s built an integrated system that prioritizes material recovery, energy generation, and composting over landfilling.

However, those systems are more expensive upfront and require initial and ongoing investment, which means aligning public infrastructure, private capital and long-term planning in ways Michigan’s current system doesn’t support.

At the heart of the issue is a tension between innovation and inertia — between new solutions and a regulatory and economic system still structured around cheap disposal. Michigan has the opportunity to lead on waste recovery, Baas argues, but doing so will require more than technical upgrades. It will demand a fundamental rethinking of how the state handles waste — and who bears the burden.

A new regulatory push

Michigan overhauled its solid waste law in 2022, in part to address methane leaks. The updated Part 115 requires all landfills — regardless of age or size — to self-monitor methane emissions and fix leaks through patching or installing gas collection systems if they exceed thresholds. New technologies, including satellite mapping and drones, offer more precise ways to detect emissions than traditional walkover surveys — but adoption remains slow.

Sniffer Robotics, an Ann Arbor-based company, developed the only EPA-approved drone for landfill methane detection. Its technology, already in use at Arbor Hills Landfill, can locate leaks faster and more accurately than older methods. Yet despite promising results, cost barriers and procurement hurdles have limited uptake across the state.

Michigan’s new rules also impose faster compliance timelines: sites must correct surface emissions within 90 days or begin designing a full gas collection system. Currently, Michigan landfills use a mix of active and passive gas systems — active systems vacuum methane to flares or energy generators. In contrast, passive systems may vent it directly into the air. Sites without active collection may eventually be forced to upgrade.

Tim Unseld, a solid waste engineer with the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), said two landfills without gas systems have already detected surface emissions and made repairs. But those fixes may not last. “Once enough landfill gas is generated, it will follow the path of least resistance to escape,” he said. Ongoing repairs can become costly — pushing operators toward installing full recovery systems, particularly if they can sell the captured methane as energy.

Environmental advocates argue the reforms don’t go far enough. “We’re the sixth-largest producer of landfill methane emissions, even though we’re only the 10th or 11th most populous state,” said Mike Garfield, executive director of the Ecology Center. “The basic reason is simple: We’ve made it too easy and too cheap to landfill waste.”

Garfield wants the state to adopt enforceable best practices across the board — including tighter flare controls, real-time monitoring, and mandatory adoption of tools like Sniffer’s — and points to the 2022 Arbor Hills consent judgment as a model.

Arbor Hills, owned by GFL Environmental, is the largest landfill in the state in terms of the amount of waste in place, according to EPA. It has faced years of complaints and violations tied to odor, gas migration, and leachate issues. So far, however, EGLE has not moved to apply those stricter terms statewide.

“The Part 115 amendments of 2023 include what EGLE considers best practices,” said agency spokesperson Josef Greenberg, adding that the state’s current focus is on implementation.

The economics of food waste disposal

Food waste is the largest single component of Michigan’s municipal waste stream by weight. Yet efforts to keep it out of landfills face a steep uphill climb — in large part because the system is built to reward the opposite.

Disposal fees are typically based on weight, creating a strong financial incentive for landfills owners to accept heavier materials like food waste. “This is really carbon-rich material — it generates methane, and they can use that methane to drive biogas-based processes,” Desirée Plata, an environmental engineer at MIT.

It’s a perverse incentive, she noted, especially as Michigan aims to reduce methane emissions. Instead of rewarding diversion, the current system reinforces disposal. “We’re paying for disposal by the ton, not by environmental outcome,” she said. According to EPA data, 35 out of 60 landfills in Michigan — nearly 60% — have landfill gas-to-energy projects. 

That tension sits at the heart of Baas’s frustration. He’s spent years trying to reorient the local waste system around recovery. “I’ve been told I’m an oddity in the waste industry,” Baas said. “Most people don’t see the system this way.”

Waste recovery adds expense and faces adoption challenges, said Debora Johnston with Waste Management. “Capturing landfill gas generates revenue to help operators keep disposal costs down, helps protect our environment, and creates a renewable energy source for our local community,” she said.

“But separating out organics like food waste is expensive.” Indeed, the estimated cost for Kent County to meet the needs of a community of 640,000 to process 400,000 tons of mixed waste would exceed $400 million.

Plata said one of the most effective actions municipalities can take today is to fund composting. “Every municipality on the planet should be funding compost programs,” she said. “It’s one of the easiest things we can do to fight climate change — and it works.”

But Johnston points out the challenge of getting people to change their ways.

“Most communities are finding participation in recycling programs to have plateaued,” Johnston said. “And new organics collection and drop-off sites face many of the same challenges.”

That’s why Baas sees single-stream processing — separating out organics like food waste and recoverable items like recyclables and metals after pickup — as the path forward.

Despite setbacks, including the withdrawal of a private-sector partner, Kent County is moving forward with its Sustainable Business Park — a proposed 250-acre campus on county-owned farmland next to the nearly full South Kent Landfill.

The county has made a deliberate decision not to site a new landfill there and instead repurpose the land for recovery infrastructure that could process food and yard waste — which has been banned from landfills in Michigan since 1993.

“We’re past the point of building another landfill,” Baas said. “We’re trying to do something different.” Still, he acknowledges the economics won’t shift without public investment and new rules. 

“We’ve determined that the highest, best use for these organics was mission critical,” he said. “But unless you change policy and infrastructure to make it go somewhere else, food waste will keep going to landfills — the lowest hanging fruit economically.”


Nina Misuraca Ignaczak wrote this article for Planet Detroit.


get more stories like this via email

Wyomingites are split on what is causing climate change, but 86% of residents in the state agree it is happening, according to a new survey.

Kristen Landreville, a researcher at the University of Wyoming, surveyed a group of state residents and found 39% think climate change is caused by humans and 47% think it is not. Causes aside, more than 80% of respondents said their communities should plan for shifting water resources.

"Whether it's local community officials, Wyoming state legislators, Wyoming governor, we see high numbers of people saying, 'We want to do more to adapt to the changing water resources in our state,'" Landreville reported.

Landreville added most people are worried about future water threats. Fewer than half of respondents said their local area is already feeling the effects of changing water resources but about 70% think the same areas could be affected in the future.

The survey also found major misconceptions about public opinion. While eight of 10 respondents believe communities should plan for changes to water resources, only half believe their community feels the same way.

"That gap of perception can create this kind of 'spiral of silence' where people don't think that it's safe to share their opinions," Landreville explained. "I think it's important for us to try to make people feel more open to share those thoughts, because that's how we get the ball rolling in terms of action, is we need to be OK to talk about it."

Despite the gap in perception, more than half of Wyomingites are optimistic the state can overcome future challenges surrounding water and related hazards.


get more stories like this via email

By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

When it comes to tackling climate change and industrial animal agriculture, a long-standing debate continues to divide advocates - is it better to focus on individual dietary shifts, or demand systemic change? Over the last decade or so, environmental and animal welfare organizations have grappled with how to combine individual behavior change with a broader push for collective action. Is it more effective to urge consumers to eat less meat, or to target meat and dairy companies to transition toward plant-based alternatives? Are individual shopping choices more impactful, or should we prioritize boycotts and pressure campaigns through grassroots activism?

A new report from the World Resource Institute reveals that both strategies can - and in fact must - work together. To combat climate change, the report finds, collective change and individual action require a joint effort.

"This research shows that people really can't do it alone," Mindy Hernandez, one of the authors of the WRI report, tells Sentient. "They need help in order to realize the very significant emissions reductions that are possible." Rather than getting caught up in the idea that "'corporations need to do something, or nothing matters,' systems-level players, specifically policy and industry actors, have a massive role to play." At the same time, Hernandez adds, "that does not give individuals a free pass."

The Surprising Origins of the 'Personal Carbon Footprint'

The idea of a "personal carbon footprint" didn't come from climate scientists or environmental advocates - it actually came from Big Oil, as a means of placing the onus on us. In 2004, British Petroleum (BP) introduced the carbon calculator, reframing the climate crisis as a matter of personal responsibility. The message was simple: Don't look at us. Look at yourself.

We're still grappling with the legacy of that messaging. A little more than 20 years later, global emissions continue to rise yet conversations around food and climate tend to be framed in terms of individual choices - both the effective ones like eating less meat and the not-so-effective ones for climate emissions, like buying local, "climate-friendly," "regenerative" or organic.

Meanwhile, the beef industry continues to pump out emissions, with little political will to tackle these emissions in a meaningful way.

Impact of Diet on the Planet

Around a third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food, and most of those food-related emissions are driven by meat, especially beef. Americans and other Global North countries must eat less meat and shift to more plant-forward diets, the research suggests. "Plant-based foods - such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans, peas, nuts, and lentils - generally use less energy, land, and water, and have lower greenhouse gas intensities than animal-based foods," according to the United Nations.

WRI's research also finds that "pro-climate behavior changes" are enough, potentially, to "theoretically cancel out all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions an average person produces each year - specifically among high-income, high-emitting populations." One of those climate-crucial behaviors, the research reveals, is cutting back on meat and dairy - especially beef and lamb.

Organic or regenerative food have various merits, but these do not include a reduction in climate emissions for beef, because organic and regenerative cattle ranching requires more land, and land has a climate emissions cost. Ultimately, none of these personal actions come close to the environmental impact of shifting away from meat and other animal-sourced products. "Full veganism can save nearly 1 ton of CO2 annually, about a sixth of the average global citizen's total emissions. But even reducing meat intake captures 40% of that impact," the report states.

Why Individual Change Is Not Enough

The WRI research also makes a larger point: focusing solely on individual behavior is not sufficient on its own. Without systemic change, we unlock just a fraction - about 10 percent - of our true climate action potential.

The other 90 percent, according to WRI, "stays locked away, dependent on governments, businesses and our own collective action to make sustainable choices more accessible for everyone. (Case in point: It's much easier to go carless if your city has good public transit.)"

Consider a student working to decrease their individual climate impact by eating less meat, WRI's Hernandez suggests. A systemic action the student could take would be to advocate for the school to adopt Meat Free Mondays or WRI's Cool Food Pledge, a program that helps organizations reduce the climate impact of their food offerings by shifting to plant-rich menus.

"Suddenly it's really easy for that student to keep their commitment to eating less meat," says Hernandez, and the collective emissions of the larger student body also then decreases.

The key is to have climate action, at both individual and systemic levels, working in unison. "Systemic pressure creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It's a two-way street," the WRI researchers write. "Bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them." And when more of us adopt these behaviors, "we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment."

Taking Action During Difficult Times

As the current administration continues to roll back environmental protections, it's a crucial time for both individual and collective action, Lauren Ornelas, founder of the nonprofit Food Empowerment Project, tells Sentient. "We can't say 'I can rely on the government to pass regulations that are good for the environment or that are good for the welfare of animals,' or 'I can rely on my policymakers to do those things.' It's kind of up to us," she says, "and this is the best time to acknowledge that in every aspect [where] we actually have power."

For those who care about food system impacts, that power can be found in what we choose to eat. "Food choices are always empowering," says Ornelas. So is taking part in a broader collective action, she adds, "to make sure that we are joining our voices with others to demand change."

And what could this look like? "Focus on the one thing that you think you can do in your household," Hernandez says." And then, think about what is the one systems-level thing you can do," like joining a local environmental or food justice group. Shifting diets away from meat and dairy may not solve the climate crisis alone, but eating less meat can be one empowering individual choice that can be made that much stronger by collective action.


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email