The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
when we talk about the meat that that we're sourcing and the systems that we're promoting it's negative three and a half pounds of carbon per pound it's actually pulling carbon out of the atmosphere sequestering into the soil where it used to be and where it belongs and keeping it there
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
when we talk about the meat that that we're sourcing and the systems that we're promoting it's negative three and a half pounds of carbon per pound it's actually pulling carbon out of the atmosphere sequestering into the soil where it used to be and where it belongs and keeping it there which actually promotes a series of amazing and good things right
for every pound of regeneratively raised meat produced 3.5 lbs of carbon dioxide is sequestered into the ground regeneratively raised beef is carbon negative
if we compare something like this to regeneratively raised red meat and ground beef is carbon negative
And when you do life cycle analysis of the carbon footprint of regeneratively raised cattle or bison, this is actually carbon neutral or carbon negative. Meaning that the amount of carbon used to produce this steak in many cases is negative. More carbon is sequestered into the ground than is actually going up into the atmosphere from the production of this steak.
grass-fed grass finished regeneratively raised meat is carbon neutral or carbon negative