Defending Beef, by Nicolette Hahn Niman, paints a picture of a better beef system, less damaging to the climate and the environment generally than the current system is. This is a vision I applaud, and one that my colleagues in the UCS Food and Environment program are researching. However, the book also raises scientific issues that I feel are worth exploring, since the dominant beef production system we have in place today, both globally and domestically, has some real problems. Read more >
Doug's Latest Posts
June 10, 2016 10:31 AM EDT
The film’s premise is based on badly flawed—and almost unanimously rejected—interpretations of science. Read more >
May 4, 2016 11:40 AM EDT
On Earth Day two weeks ago, 171 countries officially signed the Paris Agreement on climate change. In doing so, they agreed to the long term goal of ending humanity’s damage to the climate—that is, reducing our emissions of global warming pollution to zero—in the second half of this century. One encouraging part of the ongoing scientific discussion about how to achieve this ambitious goal, is that we’re finally starting to take seriously the impact of what people eat. Three recent studies show that it makes a big difference, to the climate as well as to our health.
April 14, 2016 11:00 AM EDT
UCS has just created a new set of web pages summarizing the latest scientific information on the drivers of tropical deforestation. Even though we published a 120-page book about this issue, The Root of the Problem, just five years ago, there is so much new information that what we wrote then is rapidly becoming out of date. And some of these new studies have changed scientists’ minds about the problem in important ways. Read more >
December 8, 2015 9:33 AM EDT
We’re halfway through the two weeks of the climate change negotiations here in Paris, and one contentious part of the draft text being negotiated is Article 3.1, entitled “Collective Long-Term Goal.” This will be a fundamental to the Paris Agreement, because it will establish what the nations of the world agree to be their ultimate objective in terms of global warming. Will it be to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average, or 2 degrees, or—God forbid—no limit at all?