April, 30 2020, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Stephanie Feldstein, (734) 395-0770, sfeldstein@biologicaldiversity.org
WASHINGTON
New research released by the University of Michigan and Tulane University today found that replacing 50% of animal products with plant-based foods in the United States would prevent more than 1.6 billion tons of greenhouse gas pollution by 2030.
If beef consumption were reduced by 90% alongside the 50% reduction in other animal products, it would prevent more than 2 billion tons of greenhouse gas pollution. That's roughly equivalent to taking nearly half the world's cars off the roads for a year.
The Center for Biological Diversity, which supported this research, has released a policy guide for decision-makers at the federal, state and local levels to advance the dietary shifts needed to meet emissions-reduction goals.
"Moving the American appetite from our burger-heavy diet to plant-based eating is a powerful and necessary part of curbing the climate crisis," said Stephanie Feldstein, population and sustainability director at the Center. "The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the meat supply chain's vulnerabilities, but our food system faces even greater long-term threats from climate change. We desperately need policymakers to support sustainable diets and a resilient food system."
Today's study, Implications of Future U.S. Diet Scenarios on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, found that replacing half of all animal-based foods with plant-based alternatives would reduce diet-related emissions by 35%. And if half of all animal-based foods were replaced with plant-based alternatives and beef consumption fell by 90%, dietary emissions would drop by 51%. If American diets remain unchanged, emissions associated with producing the food we eat will climb 9% by 2030.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that the world has under 10 years to reduce global emission by half to avoid the worst impacts of catastrophic climate change. Last year the IPCC warned that food systems are already being adversely affected by climate disruption and identified dietary shifts as a solution for mitigation and adaptation. Previous research has shown that society will be unable to meet global climate targets without reducing meat and dairy consumption and production.
"While diet shift isn't a silver bullet, it could play an important role in curbing climate change," said Martin Heller, lead author of the study and research specialist at University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Systems at the School for Environment and Sustainability. "Plus, it's an actionable strategy at all levels, from consumers to the food industry to local, state and national policy."
The Center's policy guide -- Appetite for Change: A Policy Guide to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions of U.S. Diets by 2030 -- outlines key actions that can be taken at all levels of government. Those include shifting procurement toward plant-based purchases, creating food-policy councils, ending subsidies and bailouts that encourage overproduction of animal products, and incorporating sustainability into federal nutrition recommendations. The Trump administration is currently revising the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
"We can't ignore that public health, sustainability, climate resilience and food security are all part of the same recipe," Feldstein said. "Our government has a responsibility to make healthy, climate-friendly foods more accessible to all Americans, and that starts with the dietary guidelines."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
In 'Victory for Voters,' Supreme Court Rejects Trump-GOP Attack on Mailed Ballots
"At a time when the Roberts Court has too often made it harder for Americans to exercise their rights, today's decision is an important and welcome exception."
Jun 29, 2026
In a surprise blow to President Donald Trump's intensifying assault on democracy in the lead-up to the November midterms, the US Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can decide to count ballots received after Election Day as long as they were postmarked in time.
Although the high court's right-wing supermajority has handed Trump various victories over his two terms, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberals for the 5-4 decision, which was welcomed by advocates for Americans with disabilities, military families, the elderly, and others who choose to vote by mail.
While over half of US states allow at least some ballots received after Election Day to be counted, in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the RNC challenged a Mississippi law that requires ballots to be postmarked on or before the date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five business days afterward.
Good news that SCOTUS preserved mail ballot grace periods but very disturbing that 4 justices led by Alito amplified Trump's conspiracies about mail voting, including debunked claims of "voter fraud" www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
[image or embed]
— Ari Berman (@ariberman.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 11:00 AM
Following oral arguments in March, the ideologically split majority found that "nothing in the federal election day statutes requires ballots to be received by Election Day," with Barrett—one of three justices appointed by Trump—delivering the majority opinion. She stressed that "we cannot add to the words Congress chose."
In a statement cheering the decision, Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and rule of law at Campaign Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in this case with Protect Democracy, said that "all voters, no matter how they cast their ballot, deserve the freedom to make their voices heard. This is a cornerstone of American democracy. And access to vote-by-mail, along with early voting and in-person voting, makes our democracy stronger by expanding access to the ballot for more voters."
Robert Weiner, the Voting Rights Project director at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law—which also submitted an amicus brief in this case and is suing over Trump's executive order on mail-in voting—celebrated that the ruling "rejects yet another attempt to prevent eligible voters from casting their votes and having them counted."
"Our democracy is stronger when more people, not less, can participate," declared Weiner, encouraging all US voters to "check the rules in your state," and anyone voting absentee "to mail their ballots early and confirm they were received."
Retired Amb. Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said that "this ruling respects state authority over election administration and prevents needless confusion for voters and election officials. At a time when the Roberts Court has too often made it harder for Americans to exercise their rights, today's decision is an important and welcome exception."
US Marine Corps veteran and Vet Voice Foundation CEO Janessa Goldbeck called the decision "a victory for every American who follows the rules, mails their ballot on time, and deserves to have their vote counted," while also highlighting that absentee voting is common among troops and their families.
"For service members stationed around the world, military spouses, veterans, and other Americans who rely on voting by mail, this ruling recognizes a simple principle: Voters should not lose their voice because of circumstances beyond their control," Goldbeck said.
As Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, pointed out, older voters also often vote by mail. He said that "for generations, states have adopted practical election rules that reflect the realities of mail delivery, protect the right to vote, and meet the needs of their citizens. The court's decision means that voters in the 14 states that provide a grace period for regular mail ballots, and the 29 states which allow additional time for at least some mail voters, including military and overseas voters, can breathe a little easier."
"Our alliance members in Mississippi proudly joined this case to defend the constitutional right to vote. We have always maintained that no eligible voter who casts a ballot in a timely manner should have that vote tossed out because of circumstances they cannot control," he added. "We will continue fighting to protect every eligible voter's right to have a ballot cast in a timely manner."
Among the older voters who have recently voted by mail is 80-year-old Trump, noted Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón—who applauded the new ruling as "a victory for voters and for an election system that meets the needs of the people it serves."
"Now, it's on Congress to pass long-overdue nationwide protections for voters," she asserted. "Common Cause will mobilize our one million members to make sure Congress hears voters loud and clear: national voting protections now."
Donald Trump spent years attacking voting by mail—even as he voted by mail himself.Then he asked the Supreme Court to throw out laws protecting your right to vote.The Court said no.
[image or embed]
— JB Pritzker (@jbpritzker.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 11:07 AM
Republicans narrowly control both chambers of Congress, and Trump continues to pressure lawmakers to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act requiring proof of US citizenship to register and vote in federal elections. Given Democratic opposition to the bill and the GOP's slim Senate majority, passage would require working around the filibuster.
Democratic leaders on Monday joined voting rights advocates in celebrating the Supreme Court's new ruling but also emphasized that, in the words of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), "as the midterm elections approach, Trump and his allies are working overtime to silence Americans' votes."
"Senate Democrats will continue to do everything we can to protect free and fair elections, where everyone's voice is heard," he vowed.
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said that "the DNC is proud to have stood with the state of Mississippi to defeat the RNC's latest attack on Americans’ voting rights," and "Trump and Republicans are attacking our elections and trying to rig the system in their favor because they know the American people are ready to reject their chaos and corruption this November."
He, too, pledged that "the DNC will remain vigilant and use every tool at our disposal to protect every eligible voter's access to the ballot box."
Democratic Association of Secretaries of State Chair Cisco Aguilar said that "my attendance at the oral arguments for Watson v. RNC in March was a demonstration of Nevada's commitment to protecting mail voting and ensuring that every eligible voter can cast a ballot in the way that works best for them."
"Democratic secretaries of state have repeatedly said that the Constitution is clear: States decide how their elections are run. Today's ruling shows they were right," Aguilar continued. "This ruling should also be a warning to the president that the letter of the law still holds weight with the Supreme Court."
"Despite this win, the right to vote remains more under threat this year than ever before," he added. "Democratic secretaries of state will continue to be on the frontlines of democracy, fighting to protect the rights of all Americans to legally cast their ballots and have confidence that their votes will be counted."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Journalists Set the Record Straight After Musk Claims ‘Not a Single' Child Died From DOGE’s USAID Cuts
"Come with me on a reporting trip," said New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. "You'll see the dying children themselves."
Jun 29, 2026
As Elon Musk continues to claim that "not a single" child has died as a result of his foreign aid cuts at the beginning of the second Trump administration, journalists—including ones who witnessed the consequences of the policy firsthand—are correcting the record.
Since being called out by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who cited a journal's projection that 4.5 million children under 5 could die by 2030 as a result of the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) sudden termination of most of the United States Agency for International Development's (USAID) programs—including an 88% cut to children's health aid awards—last year, the newly minted trillionaire has repeatedly asserted that the claim that he is responsible for the deaths of kids is "a total lie."
"There is not even a single dead child!" Musk wrote on his social media platform X last Monday. "If there were, it would be worldwide headline news!"
Multiple journalists have been quick to respond that, in fact, the deaths of children and other people directly attributed to the termination of USAID programs by the agency he headed have been widely documented by major news outlets.
"Independent analyses estimate that your actions to dismantle USAID and drastically reduce lifesaving foreign aid have already killed 700,000 people," wrote Atul Gawande, the former USAID global health chief and longtime New Yorker writer, who cited models from Boston University epidemiologist Brooke Nichols.
In a lengthy thread posted on Thursday, Gawande cited nearly two-dozen examples in which news outlets named people who died as a direct result of cuts to health programs they relied upon, including:
- Nyagoa, the 1-year-old daughter of Nyajime Duop, who died of cholera after the International Rescue Committee's mobile health team stopped coming to her village in South Sudan after its grant was terminated, according to a December report from ProPublica. Save the Children said last year that it was forced to either shutter or scale back care at its 27 child clinics in Akobo County, in South Sudan's Jonglei state. In April 2025, amid a cholera outbreak, the group reported that five children died while walking three hours to the nearest clinic after the one near them closed, which was reported by The Associated Press.
- 5-year-old Suza Kenyaba in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who died on February 19 after shipment of an anti-malaria drug that had already been purchased was left stranded in a distribution warehouse after payments to contractors were frozen by the US government, according to The Washington Post. There were more than 600 malaria deaths in the DRC's Haut-Katanga province in the first six months of 2025, more than the total number in 2024. The Post found that 95% of USAID malaria medication shipments in the first six months of 2025 were either delayed or did not arrive at all.
- 11-year-old Paciencia in Mozambique died after the case worker handling her treatment for HIV was abruptly laid off along with most others, hospitals ran out of the US-funded antiretroviral drugs she relied upon, and she was given the wrong medication after the data clerks who managed patient information were laid off, according to the South African publication Spotlight. The National Association for Self-Sustained Development (ANDA), the US-funded group that handled this HIV treatment, found that at least 16 children died between January and June 2025 in the province of Manica, many more than they had seen before the cuts.
These are just a few of the numerous other examples cited by Gawande, who added that part of the reason verifying deaths has been challenging is that DOGE's cuts also "destroyed" USAID's data and auditing systems, which meant that figures and overall mortality effects would take another year to fully tally.
However, he said he and a team of reporters had already compiled individual reports of more than 1,200 people whose deaths can be directly attributed to the cuts.
Even after being presented with direct evidence to the contrary, Musk continued to insist on Sunday that critics of his cuts to USAID "cannot cite a single name of someone who died out of the 'millions' they falsely claim have died. Not a single name!"
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, whose reporting on the impacts of the sudden aid cuts was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize, responded that he could give Musk a list of "many, many names of people who have died because of your aid cuts."
He listed the names of just a few of the people whose cases he had witnessed firsthand, which are recounted in greater depth in his reports. As Kristoff wrote:- Yamah Freeman was a [21-year-old] woman who died in childbirth because you stopped paying for the diesel for ambulances in her part of Liberia. I talked to her parents and sister in their village.
- Gbessey Kiadu, age 1, died of malaria because of your cuts in Liberia. I talked to his mom in her village.
- Ibrahim Koroma, an infant, died of AIDS in Sierra Leone after you interrupted HIV supplies. I talked to health workers who cared for him.
- Achol Deng was an 8-year-old girl with HIV in South Sudan who died when you cut funding for the health care worker who provided her medicines. I talked to him.
"I could go on and on," Kristof continued, "In almost every village you go to in South Sudan, Uganda, Liberia, Sierra Leone or other countries I reported in, you find people dying because of aid cuts."
He issued a "challenge" to Musk: "Come with me on a reporting trip, and we'll talk to these moms and dads, and you'll see the dying children themselves. I think if you see the kids whose lives are at stake, maybe you'll change your mind."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israel Killing West Bank Children at Highest Rate in Decades 'With Virtually No Accountability'
"The system does not merely back those who pull the trigger—it effectively grants them a license to kill," said the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem.
Jun 29, 2026
Between October 2023 and June 2026, Israel's military killed Palestinian children in the occupied West Bank at the highest rate since 1967, according to a report published Monday by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem.
The report, titled Unshielded Childhood, argues that "the unprecedented scale of killing of Palestinian children and teenagers by Israeli forces is the result of a reckless open-fire policy, expanded to be even more permissive than in the past, that is currently being implemented in the West Bank." Between October 7, 2023 and June 28, 2026, Israeli forces killed more than 240 children and teenagers, with 54 killed in 2025 alone.
The report, which tells the story of each child killed by Israeli forces last year, quotes Israel's top West Bank commander, Avi Bluth, who recently boasted that Israeli forces are "killing like we haven’t killed since 1967"—a reference to the Six-Day War in which Israel seized the West Bank. Among those killed between the start of 2025 and June 7, 2026 were two brothers—one 5 years old, the other 6—and a seven-month-old baby.
Yuli Novak, executive director of B'Tselem, said in a statement that "the widespread, unprecedented killing of Palestinian children and teenagers in the West Bank is the result of a broader Israeli policy that enables the killing of Palestinians with virtually no accountability."
"When the military commander of the area boasts that Israel is killing Palestinians ‘like we haven't killed since 1967,’ he is confirming exactly that: The system does not merely back those who pull the trigger—it effectively grants them a license to kill," Novak added.
Citing fellow Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din, B'Tselem noted that "no indictments are known to have been filed in cases involving killings in the West Bank" since October 2023.
"Yet the immunity guaranteed in advance and the absence of any real demand for accountability after these crimes are committed are not confined to the legal sphere," the report states. "They are also reflected in 'public impunity' that stems from the Israeli public’s indifference to the killing of Palestinian children."
בשנת 2025 הרגה ישראל הרגה 54 ילדים ובני נוער פלסטינים בגדה המערבית.
הדו״ח החדש שלנו מספר את סיפורם של כל אחד ואחת מהם.
מאז אוקטובר 2023 נהרגו בידי ישראל בגדה המערבית 1,086 פלסטינים, בהם 241 ילדים ובני נוער – ובהם גם סאם אבו הייכל, תינוק בן שבעה חודשים. אלה אינם מקרים חריגים,… pic.twitter.com/j96gyE3dAQ
— B'Tselem בצלם بتسيلم (@btselem) June 29, 2026
B'Tselem linked the spike in Israeli forces' killing of Palestinian children in the West Bank to "the military's declared easing of open-fire regulations at the end of 2021, reportedly permitting soldiers to use lethal fire against stone throwers in a departure from previous rules."
"The new regulations permitted use of lethal fire even at individuals fleeing after suspectedly throwing stones, who no longer posed a danger—in violation of international law," the group noted. "After 7 October 2023, the rules of engagement were further expanded, leading to another sharp rise in fatalities."
B'Tselem's investigation found that just two of the 54 Palestinian children and teenagers killed in the West Bank last year were armed with guns at the time they were killed by Israeli forces.
The group continued:
Thirteen were shot while throwing stones at roads or at armored Israeli forces, with no injuries reported from the stone-throwing. By contrast, at least 21 were not involved in any clashes, even when clashes were taking place nearby that included stone-throwing, hurling explosives or live fire. Regarding 12 minors, the military claimed they had tried to injure forces by throwing Molotov cocktails, IEDs ,or stones; B’Tselem’s investigation could neither verify nor refute this claim. Another teen was the object of a targeted killing. Forty-seven of the children and teenagers were killed by gunfire, and the remaining seven in airstrikes.
B'Tselem emphasized that the West Bank killings "cannot be separated from Israel's killing of more than 21,000 Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip."
"By allowing Israel to kill on such a scale in Gaza without consequences, the international community has effectively given it a green light to pursue the same lethal policy in the West Bank," the group said in a statement. "As long as Israel continues to enjoy near-total impunity in the world, the lives of Palestinians—including children—will remain unprotected and exposed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


