a new report reveals the colossal, yet often overlooked, climate footprint of Big Meat and Dairy.

• Download the executive summary
• Download the full report (with methodology annex)
• Read the press release
• Download the underlying dataset

Key findings:

• These 45 Big Meat and Dairy companies combined emitted an estimated 1 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2023/22 (in CO2eq ). If they were a country, they would be the world’s ninth highest GHG-emitting nation. In fact, the companies’ combined emissions are estimated to be more than those reported for Saudi Arabia, reportedly the second largest oil producer in the world.
• The methane emissions from these 45 companies combined are estimated to exceed the reported methane emissions of all the EU27 countries and the UK combined in 2023.
• The top five emitters emerging from this analysis combined — JBS, Marfrig, Tyson, Minerva, and Cargill — emitted an estimated 496 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2023 (in CO2eq ), more than reported for Chevron, Shell, or BP. The estimated greenhouse gas emissions of these five companies combined accounted for nearly half (48%) of the estimated total emissions of 45 meat and dairy companies analysed.
• JBS alone, estimated to be the world’s highest-emitting meat corporation, accounted for nearly one quarter (24%) of all estimated greenhouse gas emissions from these 45 meat and dairy companies. Greenpeace Nordic has estimated in an earlier publication that JBS emits more methane than reported for ExxonMobil and Shell combined.

Disclaimer: This is all subject to change and nothing but my best guesses; my theories so far. That being said, what are your genuine thoughts and criticisms of this first draft?

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." - Solomon (Doing of doings; all is a doing)

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi (Selflessness and selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankind’s acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we've organized ourselves and manipulated our environment that’s led to our present as we know it.)

If vanity (a desire to do; a striving), born from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here's a proposed chain of things:

Sense Organs+Present Environment/Consciousness/Imagination/Knowledge/Reason/Truth/Influence/Desire/Morality/Vanity

• Vanity is governed by morality,
• Morality is rooted in desire,
• Desire stems from influence,
• Influence is shaped by truth,
• Truth arises from reason,
• Reason is born from knowledge,
• Knowledge is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organ reacting to our present environment.

There's a place for Spirit here but haven't decided where exactly; defined more objectively however: "The nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul"; ones "personality." Some cats have even a phobia for water, others will jump right in; some cats love their belly rubbed, others will claw and bite at you for going anywhere near it.

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

Sense Organs + Present Environment: It all begins with our sense organs reacting to whatever our present environment consists of. Without our sense organs, we humans (conscious capable beings on a planet) wouldn't be able to be as aware as we sure seem to be to whatever our present environment consists of; no sense organs, no degree of consciousness. However, without an environment for our sense organs to react to, what good would they be? What would be the outcome of a human that was born into nothing but a small, empty room? Nothing; it wouldn't know squat and wouldn't grow to be anywhere near as conscious as you and I sure seem to be—knowledge being what governs over ones level of consciousness. As we age and gather more knowledge of the experience or simply information for example, the more and more conscious we become; I wouldn't be anywhere near as conscious or aware of the vastness of the universe without gaining that knowledge first, for example. Unfortunately, there's living proof of exactly this—a poor little girl was locked up in a cellar by her father at twenty months old until she was Thirteen: theguardian.com/society/2016/j…

Consciousness: With sense organs reacting to an environment comes the ability to be conscious or aware of either oneself, or anything else; consciousness can be divided into two, I dont know, types? Kinds?—the extent of how much more conscious or aware we are of ourselves, and the extent of how much more conscious we are of everything else. An awareness that gives birth to any degree of selfish awareness or what we call today—"selfishness" and selfless awareness or "selflessness," therefore. Without our ability to be as conscious as we sure seem to be in contrast to any other living thing that's supposedly ever existed, there can't be any knowing of anything. No consciousness, no knowledge; consciousness is what gives life, so to speak, to any degree of knowledge on a planet, and is what keeps it living. Even the knowledge that instinct reveals to both something capable of acknowledging its own instinct, and something not capable of coming anywhere close of being able to do so.

Imagination: Consciousness may be what gives life to any degree of knowledge, but its our imaginations that truly make it possible. With no imagination comes the inability to shape knowledge; knowledge needs to be given the form of something to be given life, so to speak. How would we ever be able to reason that combing two things with another two things makes four things without being able to first give those thoughts shape via our imaginations? Would we even be able to reason at all to begin with? Things like Philosophy simply wouldn't exist. Hell, would any knowing of anything exist? One's imagination and how "big" or detailed it is, is on a spectrum, akin to what we're presently referring to as "Autism Spectrum Disorder." There's what's called "Hyperphantasia," which is the term used to categorize a human with an above average detailed or "big" imagination, "Aphantasia," to categorize those with little to even non-existent detailed imaginations, and of course average imaginations that can be referred to as simply "Phantasia," this being the ancient Greek word for "imagination." The extent of one's inner dialogue or inner thoughts are governed by how detailed ones imagination is, as well as one's ability to empathize—to imagine in our heads the perspectives of other things and subsequently feel the feelings of other things for ourselves; another one of our more profound and unique abilities we humans posses so much more capacity for in contrast to nature.

Knowledge: With our imaginations come knowledge. This one is the most important in my opinion. Knowledge is what separates us the most from nature. Yes, we may be mammals, but its our unique and profound ability for knowledge—to retain and transfer it—that allows us to take what our instincts would demand of us otherwise, inherently, and not only deny the more barbaric thoughts and behaviors that are born out of instinct, but even "suffer" to pierce past them, in favor of where a knowledge takes us. There's nothing that comes anywhere close to this unique and profound ability we humans posses; to not only be able to acknowledge our instincts and any more "barbaric" thoughts and subsequent behaviors born out of it, but to even consider, not to mention the great lengths we can push past ourselves in favor of the exact opposite. Instincts (selfishness) demand retaliation, knowledge (selflessness) reveals alternatives that we wouldn't be able to even begin to consider being otherwise absent knowledge. Without knowledge, instincts would completely rule over us as it does lesser conscious, capable beings; knowledge is what makes us free—free from the government of instinct, that is.

Reason: With this unique and profound capacity for knowledge comes our ability to reason with it; to weigh it; quantify (measure) it; to choose it. Reason takes the knowledge we form or shape via our imaginations and rounds it out, so to speak. We may be able to imagine knowledge, but its reason that gives us the ability to take these more simple shapes and make them into triangles and unto decagons; to evolve two plus two is four into rocket science; to take knowledge and turn it into a book, even of our knowledge of morality; to lead one to stop and think when met with someone who offers their other cheek in return after slapping them on the other. It's the very creator of what we now call "logic." With our ability to reason, comes the ability to shape knowledge into a truth.

Truth: To reason is to be able to comprehend what presently reveals itself to be more or less rational and thus, what's subjectively "right" and with that, true. It's by this ability that allows us to take the shapes of knowledge we conjure via our imaginations and ability to reason and turn them into a truth; the truth of wearing clothes for example. It's our ability to reason or "wrestle" with the truth and subsequently live by or deny the outcomes that determines who or what we ultimately become the product of; we are what we've been surrounded with, however, we are also what we repeatedly choose to think, and therefore, do. If I either knowingly or unknowingly have decided that becoming a manager of a clothes store is what's presently revealing itself to be the most rational decision, and subsequently live by it, I will ultimately become a product of that doing; of that knowledge. It's truth to whatever degree (questionable or unquestionable; absolutely or not so absolutely true) that's always guided mankind throughout the ages and into our present as we know it. But what would truth be without the overwhelming influence of other people? To what degree would we believe this or that as true without the influence of our contemporaries? Would we even be able to consider anything as true without all those that have come before us, rounding it out into what we as a species know to be true to whatever degree today? We wouldn't even be able to communicate without all the knowledge of the influence of all those that have come before us, that we take for granted today.

Influence: Would you know all that you know now without the knowledge of the influence of all those that have ever surrounded you? What would you know of even tying your shoes? Truth may be what governs over what or who we ultimately become the product of, but without influence, well, there wouldn't be a whole lot to know would there? If you were the only human on Earth that's ever existed, you'd be absent the knowledge of all that we presently know and have ever presently known, you and I presently at the pinnacle of the "present." Without influence, Plato wouldn't ever have known all that he knew; he wouldn't have possessed the faculty to express what he knew and he wouldn't ever have gained the knowledge of what Socrates had to share without his influence; Peter or Mary Magdalene would've just kept living there lives without the influence of Jesus. Would we know all that we know now of the relevance and logic of loves ability to overcome hate if it wasn't for people like Jesus or Gandhi going to the great lengths they did to point it out? If someone hadn't yelled "watch out!" How would the group of people be aware of what's about to fall unto them and destroy them? How would they be able to save themselves (from the inherency of themselves in Jesus' or Gandhi's case)? To become a "sign" (Luke 11:29) or an influence upon their contemporaries to even be able to consider love and selflessness over hate and selfishness; to walk the more difficult, less convenient, narrower path that knowledge reveals to us over the more inherent, far more convenient, wider path that instinct demands of us, that we're otherwise more inherently drawn to? Without the influence of your parents for example, would you value what you presently do as much as you would without their influence? Would one simply become a racist along with their families and/or contemporaries as another example? How could one know of the woes of racism and the woes of not questioning or wrestling with the truth as its presented to them via the overwhelming influence of our contemporaries, without knowing of the value of doing so beforehand?

Desire: Without the influence of knowledge to whatever degree, what would we desire? How can one desire ice cream without first gaining the knowledge of the experience of its profound taste? Way back when we weren't aware of sex, to what degree did we desire it? If the influence of our contemporaries didn't consist of sex in any way whatsoever, would we desire it as much as we do today? Obviously, instinct would say the desire would still persist, but to what degree in this context in contrast to our present conditions? Where sex is not only encouraged, but it's even "cool" and culturally "adults" participate in it in droves, so therefore, you being an adult too means that of course you should desire it to the same degrees right? Wrong. We may very well be what we are surrounded with, but we are of course what we repeatedly choose to think and therefore, do. Desire stems from our sense organs reacting to our environment; without this reaction, what would sex be but simply procreation? Just a side note, if sex didn't feel as good as it does, would anyone be led to "want" to procreate? Of would it fade away as walking to our destinations has in favor of vehicles today for example? It's desire that leads one to act or do for the sake of itself (selfishness), or anything else (selflessness), and that potentially leads to a level of passion that has the potential to "undo" or "defile" a humans mind, to even lead one to murder or commit suicide, via the passions that are flamed by both hate and love.

Morality: With desire comes our inherency to measure the good or evil within any doing born out of desire. Morality may be subjective, but just like time for example, via our ability to acknowledge, measure, and organize it, we've always been able to find degrees of objectivity within our knowing of anything, like the laws of physics for example, we've come to find "laws of love" - Tolstoy, or whatever any group of humans have come up with to measure and organize time at any point throughout mankind’s history. Through our inherency to empathize, (the law and the prophets as a whole that were meant to be fulfilled, in my opinion of course - Matt 5:17, 22:40), we're able to make the most accurate measurement to determine what most people would agree to be "good" or "bad," just as we're able to determine what time it presently is for most people. Of course it would still be very circumstantial and dependent on the situation, person, culture, and day in age, but generally, using the most accurate tool at our disposal, we can find degrees of objectively within the sea of subjectivity that is our knowledge of morality. Any doing born out of desire—by considering its origins, or what’s at the core of it—can be categorized as a doing for the sake of oneself (selfishness), or for the sake of anything else (selflessness).

Vanity: With our ability to acknowledge, measure, and give life to morality on an Earth comes the doing of any desire, thus, the vanity of it; if we didn't desire anything, what would we aspire to do? If nothing was good or bad, right (and therefore rational) or wrong, good or evil, then why desire anything? Is it, what we call today, "instinct" that demands we quench our thirst when suffering from the lack of it? Or is it that inherent demand for ourselves born out of consciousness and our knowing of morality coupled with our inherency to measure it in relation to ourselves specifically? Just as most nature is conscious enough to share that inherent demand for itself, so we humans just can't help but do the same. The difference being how much more conscious we are of ourselves and morality in contrast, hence the extent of how much more angry we become, or sad (its very difficult to lead a pet to gain a grudge towards its owner), to the point of even "crippling" ourselves. With desire comes the ability to act for the sake of oneself (selfishness), or anything else (selflessness). Upon this inevitable choice lays the foundation of human behavior and subsequently the extent we've ever and presently manipulated our environment and organized ourselves up until now as a species, and what will, objectively—God or not, forever govern over the future of the tomorrow of the most conscious, capable species on this planet; the ones with the most potential for either itself, or anything else.

Disclaimer: This is all subject to change and nothing but my best guesses; my theories so far. That being said, what are your genuine thoughts and criticisms of this first draft?

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." - Solomon (Doing of doings; all is a doing)

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi (Selflessness and selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankind’s acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we've organized ourselves and manipulated our environment that’s led to our present as we know it.)

If vanity (a desire to do; a striving), born from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here's a proposed chain of things:

Sense Organs+Present Environment/Consciousness/Imagination/Knowledge/Reason/Truth/Influence/Desire/Morality/Vanity

• Vanity is governed by morality,
• Morality is rooted in desire,
• Desire stems from influence,
• Influence is shaped by truth,
• Truth arises from reason,
• Reason is born from knowledge,
• Knowledge is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organ reacting to our present environment.

There's a place for Spirit here but haven't decided where exactly; defined more objectively however: "The nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul"; ones "personality." Some cats have even a phobia for water, others will jump right in; some cats love their belly rubbed, others will claw and bite at you for going anywhere near it.

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

Sense Organs + Present Environment: It all begins with our sense organs reacting to whatever our present environment consists of. Without our sense organs, we humans (conscious capable beings on a planet) wouldn't be able to be as aware as we sure seem to be to whatever our present environment consists of; no sense organs, no degree of consciousness. However, without an environment for our sense organs to react to, what good would they be? What would be the outcome of a human that was born into nothing but a small, empty room? Nothing; it wouldn't know squat and wouldn't grow to be anywhere near as conscious as you and I sure seem to be—knowledge being what governs over ones level of consciousness. As we age and gather more knowledge of the experience or simply information for example, the more and more conscious we become; I wouldn't be anywhere near as conscious or aware of the vastness of the universe without gaining that knowledge first, for example. Unfortunately, there's living proof of exactly this—a poor little girl was locked up in a cellar by her father at twenty months old until she was Thirteen: theguardian.com/society/2016/j…

Consciousness: With sense organs reacting to an environment comes the ability to be conscious or aware of either oneself, or anything else; consciousness can be divided into two, I dont know, types? Kinds?—the extent of how much more conscious or aware we are of ourselves, and the extent of how much more conscious we are of everything else. An awareness that gives birth to any degree of selfish awareness or what we call today—"selfishness" and selfless awareness or "selflessness," therefore. Without our ability to be as conscious as we sure seem to be in contrast to any other living thing that's supposedly ever existed, there can't be any knowing of anything. No consciousness, no knowledge; consciousness is what gives life, so to speak, to any degree of knowledge on a planet, and is what keeps it living. Even the knowledge that instinct reveals to both something capable of acknowledging its own instinct, and something not capable of coming anywhere close of being able to do so.

Imagination: Consciousness may be what gives life to any degree of knowledge, but its our imaginations that truly make it possible. With no imagination comes the inability to shape knowledge; knowledge needs to be given the form of something to be given life, so to speak. How would we ever be able to reason that combing two things with another two things makes four things without being able to first give those thoughts shape via our imaginations? Would we even be able to reason at all to begin with? Things like Philosophy simply wouldn't exist. Hell, would any knowing of anything exist? One's imagination and how "big" or detailed it is, is on a spectrum, akin to what we're presently referring to as "Autism Spectrum Disorder." There's what's called "Hyperphantasia," which is the term used to categorize a human with an above average detailed or "big" imagination, "Aphantasia," to categorize those with little to even non-existent detailed imaginations, and of course average imaginations that can be referred to as simply "Phantasia," this being the ancient Greek word for "imagination." The extent of one's inner dialogue or inner thoughts are governed by how detailed ones imagination is, as well as one's ability to empathize—to imagine in our heads the perspectives of other things and subsequently feel the feelings of other things for ourselves; another one of our more profound and unique abilities we humans posses so much more capacity for in contrast to nature.

Knowledge: With our imaginations come knowledge. This one is the most important in my opinion. Knowledge is what separates us the most from nature. Yes, we may be mammals, but its our unique and profound ability for knowledge—to retain and transfer it—that allows us to take what our instincts would demand of us otherwise, inherently, and not only deny the more barbaric thoughts and behaviors that are born out of instinct, but even "suffer" to pierce past them, in favor of where a knowledge takes us. There's nothing that comes anywhere close to this unique and profound ability we humans posses; to not only be able to acknowledge our instincts and any more "barbaric" thoughts and subsequent behaviors born out of it, but to even consider, not to mention the great lengths we can push past ourselves in favor of the exact opposite. Instincts (selfishness) demand retaliation, knowledge (selflessness) reveals alternatives that we wouldn't be able to even begin to consider being otherwise absent knowledge. Without knowledge, instincts would completely rule over us as it does lesser conscious, capable beings; knowledge is what makes us free—free from the government of instinct, that is.

Reason: With this unique and profound capacity for knowledge comes our ability to reason with it; to weigh it; quantify (measure) it; to choose it. Reason takes the knowledge we form or shape via our imaginations and rounds it out, so to speak. We may be able to imagine knowledge, but its reason that gives us the ability to take these more simple shapes and make them into triangles and unto decagons; to evolve two plus two is four into rocket science; to take knowledge and turn it into a book, even of our knowledge of morality; to lead one to stop and think when met with someone who offers their other cheek in return after slapping them on the other. It's the very creator of what we now call "logic." With our ability to reason, comes the ability to shape knowledge into a truth.

Truth: To reason is to be able to comprehend what presently reveals itself to be more or less rational and thus, what's subjectively "right" and with that, true. It's by this ability that allows us to take the shapes of knowledge we conjure via our imaginations and ability to reason and turn them into a truth; the truth of wearing clothes for example. It's our ability to reason or "wrestle" with the truth and subsequently live by or deny the outcomes that determines who or what we ultimately become the product of; we are what we've been surrounded with, however, we are also what we repeatedly choose to think, and therefore, do. If I either knowingly or unknowingly have decided that becoming a manager of a clothes store is what's presently revealing itself to be the most rational decision, and subsequently live by it, I will ultimately become a product of that doing; of that knowledge. It's truth to whatever degree (questionable or unquestionable; absolutely or not so absolutely true) that's always guided mankind throughout the ages and into our present as we know it. But what would truth be without the overwhelming influence of other people? To what degree would we believe this or that as true without the influence of our contemporaries? Would we even be able to consider anything as true without all those that have come before us, rounding it out into what we as a species know to be true to whatever degree today? We wouldn't even be able to communicate without all the knowledge of the influence of all those that have come before us, that we take for granted today.

Influence: Would you know all that you know now without the knowledge of the influence of all those that have ever surrounded you? What would you know of even tying your shoes? Truth may be what governs over what or who we ultimately become the product of, but without influence, well, there wouldn't be a whole lot to know would there? If you were the only human on Earth that's ever existed, you'd be absent the knowledge of all that we presently know and have ever presently known, you and I presently at the pinnacle of the "present." Without influence, Plato wouldn't ever have known all that he knew; he wouldn't have possessed the faculty to express what he knew and he wouldn't ever have gained the knowledge of what Socrates had to share without his influence; Peter or Mary Magdalene would've just kept living there lives without the influence of Jesus. Would we know all that we know now of the relevance and logic of loves ability to overcome hate if it wasn't for people like Jesus or Gandhi going to the great lengths they did to point it out? If someone hadn't yelled "watch out!" How would the group of people be aware of what's about to fall unto them and destroy them? How would they be able to save themselves (from the inherency of themselves in Jesus' or Gandhi's case)? To become a "sign" (Luke 11:29) or an influence upon their contemporaries to even be able to consider love and selflessness over hate and selfishness; to walk the more difficult, less convenient, narrower path that knowledge reveals to us over the more inherent, far more convenient, wider path that instinct demands of us, that we're otherwise more inherently drawn to? Without the influence of your parents for example, would you value what you presently do as much as you would without their influence? Would one simply become a racist along with their families and/or contemporaries as another example? How could one know of the woes of racism and the woes of not questioning or wrestling with the truth as its presented to them via the overwhelming influence of our contemporaries, without knowing of the value of doing so beforehand?

Desire: Without the influence of knowledge to whatever degree, what would we desire? How can one desire ice cream without first gaining the knowledge of the experience of its profound taste? Way back when we weren't aware of sex, to what degree did we desire it? If the influence of our contemporaries didn't consist of sex in any way whatsoever, would we desire it as much as we do today? Obviously, instinct would say the desire would still persist, but to what degree in this context in contrast to our present conditions? Where sex is not only encouraged, but it's even "cool" and culturally "adults" participate in it in droves, so therefore, you being an adult too means that of course you should desire it to the same degrees right? Wrong. We may very well be what we are surrounded with, but we are of course what we repeatedly choose to think and therefore, do. Desire stems from our sense organs reacting to our environment; without this reaction, what would sex be but simply procreation? Just a side note, if sex didn't feel as good as it does, would anyone be led to "want" to procreate? Of would it fade away as walking to our destinations has in favor of vehicles today for example? It's desire that leads one to act or do for the sake of itself (selfishness), or anything else (selflessness), and that potentially leads to a level of passion that has the potential to "undo" or "defile" a humans mind, to even lead one to murder or commit suicide, via the passions that are flamed by both hate and love.

Morality: With desire comes our inherency to measure the good or evil within any doing born out of desire. Morality may be subjective, but just like time for example, via our ability to acknowledge, measure, and organize it, we've always been able to find degrees of objectivity within our knowing of anything, like the laws of physics for example, we've come to find "laws of love" - Tolstoy, or whatever any group of humans have come up with to measure and organize time at any point throughout mankind’s history. Through our inherency to empathize, (the law and the prophets as a whole that were meant to be fulfilled, in my opinion of course - Matt 5:17, 22:40), we're able to make the most accurate measurement to determine what most people would agree to be "good" or "bad," just as we're able to determine what time it presently is for most people. Of course it would still be very circumstantial and dependent on the situation, person, culture, and day in age, but generally, using the most accurate tool at our disposal, we can find degrees of objectively within the sea of subjectivity that is our knowledge of morality. Any doing born out of desire—by considering its origins, or what’s at the core of it—can be categorized as a doing for the sake of oneself (selfishness), or for the sake of anything else (selflessness).

Vanity: With our ability to acknowledge, measure, and give life to morality on an Earth comes the doing of any desire, thus, the vanity of it; if we didn't desire anything, what would we aspire to do? If nothing was good or bad, right (and therefore rational) or wrong, good or evil, then why desire anything? Is it, what we call today, "instinct" that demands we quench our thirst when suffering from the lack of it? Or is it that inherent demand for ourselves born out of consciousness and our knowing of morality coupled with our inherency to measure it in relation to ourselves specifically? Just as most nature is conscious enough to share that inherent demand for itself, so we humans just can't help but do the same. The difference being how much more conscious we are of ourselves and morality in contrast, hence the extent of how much more angry we become, or sad (its very difficult to lead a pet to gain a grudge towards its owner), to the point of even "crippling" ourselves. With desire comes the ability to act for the sake of oneself (selfishness), or anything else (selflessness). Upon this inevitable choice lays the foundation of human behavior and subsequently the extent we've ever and presently manipulated our environment and organized ourselves up until now as a species, and what will, objectively—God or not, forever govern over the future of the tomorrow of the most conscious, capable species on this planet; the ones with the most potential for either itself, or anything else.