November, 15 2022, 01:18pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Cecelia Brackey
Media and Communications Manager
612-870-0453x3001
Fifteen Meat and Dairy Companies Emit More Methane than Russia -- New Report
WASHINGTON
Fifteen of the world's biggest meat and dairy companies emit more methane than countries such as Russia, Canada, Australia or Germany, reveals new research released today.
The report, which calls for more ambitious action to cut emissions from the meat and dairy sector, is being launched ahead of a Global Methane Pledge Ministerial at the U.N. Climate Summit on 17 November, where 40 countries are expected to release national methane plans.
Emissions Impossible: Methane Edition from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the Changing Markets Foundation calculates the methane emissions of companies such as Nestle, Danone, Danish Crown and Saputo for the first time. It finds:
- The companies' combined methane emissions rival that of the EU (83%) and Russia (115%) and far exceed Canada (377%), Australia (355%) and Germany (705%). The methane footprint of JBS, the world's biggest meat company, is greater than that of Italy, Spain and the U.K. combined.
- The 15 companies are responsible for 3.4% of global methane emissions from human activity and 11% of total global livestock emissions.
- The methane footprint of Brazilian meat company, Marfrig, is comparable to Australia's livestock sector; the U.S. multinational, Tyson Foods, to Russia's; and New Zealand dairy giant Fonterra, to Ireland's.
- The companies' combined greenhouse gas emissions are greater than that of Germany, the world's fourth biggest economy, and exceed those of oil and gas giants such as ExxonMobil, BP and Shell.
Despite their huge climate footprint, only six of the companies fully report their emissions -- including from animals in their supply chains which account for 90% of the sector's climate footprint. None of the companies publish information on the methane emissions of their supply chains. It is difficult to assess their climate plans and commitments without this information.
Shefali Sharma, European Director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, said: "The methane emissions of the big meat and dairy companies rival those of nation states, yet they hide their colossal climate footprint behind a veneer of greenwash and net-zero targets. These companies won't do what is needed voluntarily -- governments must set rules to regulate their emissions and support farmers to transition away from industrial agriculture."
The Pledge, launched at the Glasgow Climate Summit last year, commits 130 countries to a 30% cut in global methane emissions by 2030. However, the focus on tech fixes such as animal feed additives over action to cut livestock numbers means even the EU and U.S are not on track to meet this target. None of the signatories -- including nine of the 10 countries where the 15 big meat and dairy companies are headquartered -- have sufficient plans to deal with livestock methane. Livestock farming is responsible for 32% of global emissions and continues to rise.
Nusa Urbanic, Campaigns Director at Changing Markets Foundation, said: "A handful of meat and dairy corporations are responsible for one in every 10 tonnes of methane produced by livestock, yet they have been given a free pass to pollute under the Global Methane Pledge. Governments should require them to report and reduce their emissions and oblige these hugely wealthy companies to put their money where their mouth is and invest in real climate solutions."
The U.N. says a 40-45% reduction in methane emissions by 2030 offers the best hope of keeping global heating below 1.5@C and avoiding dangerous tipping points. Methane only remains in the atmosphere for a decade but has 80 times more warming potential than carbon dioxide over a 20-year timespan. Under current policies, emissions are expected to rise by 30% between 2015-2050.
Ricardo Salvador, Director, Food & Environment Program, Union of Concerned Scientists, said: "Our best hope of keeping global heating below 1.5@C is through rapid cuts in methane emissions that are only possible with more ambitious action targeting emissions from the livestock industry in the Global Methane Pledge and government policy. The Farm Bill in the U.S. and the Common Agriculture Policy in the EU should help farmers and ranchers produce less and better meat and dairy for the good of people and the planet."
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.
LATEST NEWS
Unhinged Trump Calls US Progressives Communist 'Animals' Who Will 'Close Your Churches' and 'Kill Your People'
The president complained about primary victories of progressives backed by New York City's democratic socialist mayor, who this week secured a rent freeze for a million units and put $15 million toward gender-affirming care.
Jun 26, 2026
After a series of electoral victories for democratic socialists and legal blows to President Donald Trump's authoritarian agenda this week, the Republican on Friday ranted to a Christian conference that progressives—whom he called "hardcore, godless communists"—are "the most serious threat to our country since its existence, in my opinion, 250 years ago."
Trump previewed his nearly 50-minute speech to the Faith and Freedom Coalition's policy conference with a lengthy post on his Truth Social platform in which he wrote: "I'd be the Greatest Communist in History. I'd give free rent, free houses, free food, everything is free. Unfortunately, after two or three years, the Country where this is taking place would fail. It always does, and then you'll start living in squalor. There will be no food, there will be no housing, there will be no Military, there will be no nothing."
In a signal that he was specifically targeting the left flank of the Democratic Party, Trump said: "They're animals! In many cases, not smart but, in some cases, they are. It's easy for them to get followers because they make promises that they know they can't keep, and the Dumocrats aren't fighting back. In many ways, they're allowing them to go their own way. They’re afraid they will lose their Election, they're afraid of conflict. They’re not smart enough or tough enough to fight this plague."
"These are not social Dumocrats, these are hardcore, godless Communists," the president continued. "Isn't it ironic, we're celebrating a very important Birthday, and instead of speaking about Christ, Freedom, and Victories of all different kinds, we're speaking about yet another threat to the Foundations of America. These ruthless Communists will attack all Religions but, in particular, Christianity—They always do. All Communist Countries attack Religions violently."
"As you know, we recently struck Nigeria, and largely ended the slaughter of their Great Christian population," he added. "They know that if they go further, the attack will be far greater and, in that, they don't want to get involved. I am saving Christians throughout the World, even though we are not in those various Countries, by hitting these Terrorists violently and hard. They will close your Churches, they will kill your people. This is what they're about."
During the actual speech, Trump specifically took aim at "the communists elected in New York City recently," who he claimed "want to completely destroy the traditional American way of life," an apparent jab at a slate of candidates who won their Democratic primaries earlier this week: Claire Valdez in New York’s 7th Congressional District, Brad Lander in the 10th District, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in the 13th District.
By contrast, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a democratic socialist who ran for president in 2016 and 2020, called the trio's victories proof that Americans "are sick and tired of status quo politics" and "want to end the corrupt campaign finance system, which enables billionaires to spend huge amounts of money to elect candidates who will represent their interests and go to war against working-class people."
All three campaigned on progressive policies including more affordable housing, Medicare for All, stronger union protections, and an end to US military support for Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestinians—and they were backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who continued delivering on his campaign promises on Thursday, when the NYC Rent Guidelines Board approved a two-year rent freeze affecting roughly a million apartments.
While Trump complained about that NYC development in his Friday speech, others have celebrated it. Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, which advocates for universal single-payer healthcare, said that "the real threat Zohran Mamdani poses is to the career politicians who've spent decades making promises, then making excuses, then telling people to vote harder next time. He's showing people that elected officials can actually do things that help them in their everyday lives."
Shortly before Trump's swipe at the New York progressives running for Congress, he claimed that left-leaning Democrats "want to resume the transgender 'mutilization' of our children." In addition to attacking lifesaving gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth, the president has restricted abortion access and signed legislation that's already led to millions losing insurance coverage.
Meanwhile, Mamdani on Friday announced a $15 million plan to expand access to gender-affirming care for youth and adults across the city, which includes a direct care access fund, a call and text line, and funding for research. He said that "as the federal government attacks transgender people and attempts to intimidate patients, families, and providers, New York City is stepping up."
Despite Trump's claim that the Democratic Party establishment isn't fighting back against ascendant progressives and democratic socialists, Axios reporting from Thursday suggests centrist Democrats are, in fact, gearing up to do so—and over a dozen have endorsed the "Promise to America" manifesto, emphasizing their support for capitalism, "fiscal discipline," and law enforcement.
Ripping the manifesto, D'Arrigo said: "'Centrism' is just performative compromise devoid of critical thinking, policy, or ideology. It’s a political vehicle that gives permission to do nothing in service of protecting a status quo that benefits large corporate donors and special interest groups who fund both parties."
In addition to serving the corporate interests that bankrolled his return to power, Trump has also served himself during his second term, growing the wealth of his family by billions of dollars and even accepting a luxury plane from Qatar.
Trump has also made a range of other moves that demonstrate his contempt for US law—from pardoning donors and other supporters, including insurrectionists who stormed the US Capitol, to weaponizing the Department of Justice against his enemies, to carrying out multiple illegal military actions, such as his invasion of Venezuela and abduction of its president, the ongoing war on Iran, and deadly bombings of boats his administration claims were trafficking drugs.
The president's violent and authoritarian agenda has faced some setbacks in court this week: Federal judges ruled against the administration's policy pushing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests at courthouses, as well as a pair of Trump executive orders that attacked voting rights.
However, those cases are ongoing, plus another federal judge issued lengthy prison sentences for a group of activists who protested outside an ICE detention center and were falsely accused by the administration of being members of a nonexistent "North Texas Antifa Cell." Trump has also continued his assault on voting rights this week, scrapping plans to sign a bipartisan housing bill in a bid to pressure Congress to pass the so-called Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.
With the November elections just over four months away, Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch, also took Trump's Friday Truth Social comments as a threat, saying, "This sounds a lot to me like Trump laying the groundwork to steal the midterms."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Backlash as Texas Approves 'Unconstitutional' Mandatory Bible Lessons in Public Schools
“That’s government-sponsored religious favoritism—and the First Amendment strictly forbids it," said one critic.
Jun 26, 2026
As education officials in Texas ban hundreds of books that run afoul of their interpretation of Christian morality, the State Board of Education on Friday approved a required reading list that forces the state's more than 5 million public school students to read from the Bible.
The Republican-controlled SBOE voted 9-5 with one abstention to approve the list, which includes passages from the Book of Exodus as well as the Shepherd's Psalm and the myths of Adam and Eve and David and Goliath.
"We’re going to stop watering down American history. We’re going to teach the truth. Our nation was founded as a Christian nation, and Texas is a Christian state,” Republican board member Brandon Hall—who is also a youth pastor at Cavalry Baptist Church in Springtown—said during a Thursday press conference in Austin.
That "truth" omits or marginalizes climate change, US imperialism, women's history, the genocide of Indigenous peoples, slavery, and racism.
Evelyn Brooks, the only Republican SBOE member to vote against the required reading list, told CNN on Friday that she believes the board's move is "unconstitutional."
“Teachers need to have their autonomy," she said. "They’ve been selecting books for decades."
In 2023, Texas' Republican-controlled Legislature passed HB 1605, which mandated the creation of a K-12 required reading list and directed the Texas Education Agency to develop state-owned textbooks. Those texts, called Bluebonnet Learning, contain lessons on Christianity starting in kindergarten. The SBOE approved Bluebonnet Learning as an optional curriculum in late 2024 and is currently working to correct thousands of errors in the curriculum at a cost of over $8 million to Texas taxpayers.
The SBOE action comes amid a legal battle over SB 10, a law signed last year by Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott that requires public elementary and secondary schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. US District Judge Fred Biery, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, subsequently issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law. Texas families also sued to block the legislation. However, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton—who is running for US Senate—demanded that schools comply with the law.
Public schools "exist to educate students with diverse faith backgrounds, as well as those who adhere to no faith doctrine," the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) said Friday. "Public schools are not Sunday schools, and elected officials have no business using state power to elevate one religion above all others. A required reading list that overwhelmingly favors Christian texts while excluding the writings and literary traditions of other faiths, not to mention the perspectives of millions of nonreligious Americans, sends an unmistakable message about who belongs and who does not."
FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor asserted that “a mandatory public school reading list should never function as a Bible lesson."
"Texas is telling millions of children that one religion deserves the government’s seal of approval, while everyone else is an afterthought," she added. "That’s government-sponsored religious favoritism—and the First Amendment strictly forbids it.”
Rabbi Joshua Fixler at Congregation Emanu El in Houston told CNN Friday that "this list is full of Christian texts that are inappropriate for public school classrooms."
"As a rabbi and a parent of Jewish kids, I think it is vital that this board make a distinction between teaching about religion and teaching religion," he added. "This list will force teachers to cross that line."
Fort Worth high school teacher Chanea Bond told The Associated Press on Friday that the SBOE's required reading list is "very old and very white."
“It is very narrow and does not represent what classrooms in Texas look like,” she said. “Going through most of high school without ever having much value put into voices that sound like yours kind of sends a message that your voices aren’t valuable.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Thinking He Can Fool Everyone,' Newsom Backs One Billionaires Tax But Not Another
"The misdirect here is that Newsom is opposing a WEALTH tax on billionaires in his own state and insisting he supports a new national INCOME tax on billionaires. But billionaires make money off non-income sources."
Jun 26, 2026
Critics say that Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to trick voters with his new plan for a national billionaire income tax, while simultaneously opposing a tax on billionaire wealth in his own state.
Along with a coterie of wealthy donors, Newsom has long stressed that he is adamantly opposed to the statewide plan to institute a one-time 5% tax on the total wealth of those in the state with more than $1 billion to fund healthcare, education, and food assistance programs, which has been spearheaded by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).
But a day after the measure was certified to appear on voters' ballots, Newsom—who is expected to run for president in 2028 and face an electorate that is angrier than ever about the outsized wealth and power of the billionaire class—unveiled a new national proposal that, at least on the surface, seems to hit many of the same populist notes as the one in California.
It's time for a national billionaires tax and a new social contract.
10% of Americans own two-thirds of the wealth. Wages have stagnated. The cost of living has skyrocketed.
The system is fundamentally broken.
The federal tax code, a corporate code, and an inheritance code… pic.twitter.com/tLRbUId6yi
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 26, 2026
"Last night, it became certain that a wealth tax would be placed on the November ballot in California. I’m voting no," he explained in a Substack post, in which he rehashed many of his previous objections—including the factually dubious idea that a wealth tax would supposedly lead to mass capital flight from the state. He also said the plan to spend most of the revenue on healthcare neglects other needs like housing, childcare, and public safety.
As an alternative, he proposed what he referred to as "a national billionaires’ tax. A true minimum tax on billionaires and those with a net worth of over $100 million."
When counting unrealized wealth gains as income, America’s richest billionaires actually pay lower effective tax rates than the average American. A 2025 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) estimated that the richest 400 Americans paid about 24% of total income in taxes from 2018-20, compared with 30% for the public as a whole.
"That system is the result of decades of loopholes written by lobbyists and upheld by politicians who knew exactly who they worked for," Newsom said. "The wealthy have their own private tax code full of loopholes and exemptions that most people have never heard of, and they’re counting on politicians in Washington to maintain it and keep quiet."
Referencing an idea from the Obama era, Newsom described his plan as "a modern Buffett Rule—that ensures the people at the very top pay at least the tax rate their own workers pay."
While he did not elaborate on what rate he'd plan to charge the wealthiest Americans, the original 2012 Buffett Rule would have required that millionaires pay a minimum effective tax rate of 30% of their adjusted gross income (AGI), which includes things like capital gains and other sources of income that are normally taxed at lower rates.
One might assume that such immense wealth translates into equally enormous tax payments.
It doesn't.
According to a study we have just completed, California's billionaires pay only 0.07% of their wealth each year in California income tax—representing barely 0.2% of the state's… pic.twitter.com/87W7y67sXh
— Gabriel Zucman (@gabriel_zucman) June 26, 2026
While Newsom had borrowed the "billionaire tax" branding of California's popular proposal, critics pointed out that he was proposing something vastly weaker.
"Read his Substack post carefully," implored Lever editor-in-chief David Sirota in a social media post. "He’s talking about income taxes and closing a few loopholes, but not a national version of the WEALTH tax on the ballot in California."
"The misdirect here is that Newsom is opposing a WEALTH tax on billionaires in his own state and insisting he supports a new national INCOME tax on billionaires," Sirota said. "But billionaires make money off non-income sources."
Gabriel Zucman, a French economist who has championed the wealth tax measure in California, has said this critical distinction between wealth and income is the reason why a wealth tax in California is needed to begin with.
"California's billionaires now hold $2.3 trillion in wealth—equivalent to roughly half of California's [gross domestic product] and about 10% of US GDP," he said. "One might assume that such immense wealth translates into equally enormous tax payments. It doesn't."
Citing a NBER working paper from last month, Zucman pointed out that "California's [top four] billionaires pay only 0.07% of their wealth each year in California income tax" while billionaires as a whole represent "barely 0.2% of the state's total tax revenue," meaning that they "contribute a negligible amount to the state that made them rich."
He noted that Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page—who have publicly opposed the billionaire's tax and, in Brin's case, spent tens of millions of dollars trying to stop it—reported no taxable income in 2019, 2020, and 2023 because all of their wealth was held in company stock. Since they didn't sell any stock during those years, they had no capital gains and therefore owed no income tax.
In the meantime, Zucman noted, "their fortunes have increased by more than $400 billion" since 2019.
🚨NEW: @RoKhanna suggests @GavinNewsom is trying to block a billionaire tax in order to protect big donors.
"Why would you want to side with 250 billionaires over the working class? The only reason...is because you care about 250 people's contributions." pic.twitter.com/mg9kHPGSa2
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) June 23, 2026
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—another potential 2028 presidential candidate who introduced his own federal billionaire wealth tax legislation in March with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—has vocally questioned Newsom's opposition to the ballot measure in California.
"Why would you want to side with 250 billionaires over the working class in California?" he asked earlier this week on a podcast hosted by Sirota. "The only reason, in my view, to not be taxing them is because you care about these 250 people's contributions to the political system."
Sirota speculated that Newsom's motivation behind co-opting and watering down the "billionaire tax" concept was much the same.
He said, "This is Newsom thinking he can fool everyone and going to bat for billionaire donors who could fund his presidential campaign."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


