Cowspiracy mistakes: Closer to an actual number (global warming estimate)

[brimstoneSalad]

This is an oldie:

http://www.vegan.com/articles/environment/a-sympathetic-but-skeptical-look-at-goodland-and-anhangs-livestock-and-climate-change/

Goodland and Anhang’s “Livestock and Climate Change”, the creators of the numbers Cowspiracy site, obviously engage in a number of instances of "double counting" if you look at their methods, which is pretty unfortunate since it undermines the argument by exaggeration. I do not doubt their good intentions, but I have a hard time believing they didn't know what they were doing, and such exaggeration damages our credibility.

This is a little more honest attempt, and a criticism of the methods used by Goodland and Anhang while still being sympathetic to the vegan message, and obviously still recognizing the magnitude of the issue.
The trouble with mainstream estimates is that they may often fail to properly account for opportunity cost.

The argument to NOT farm that land, and leave the land to capture carbon naturally by building up the soil and growing trees and the like may be compelling. I'm actually more concerned with methane released in oil drilling, which I'm not sure he accounted for, so I still think ethanol is valuable despite energy inputs.
Either way, it's a much more believable estimate.

[brimstoneSalad]

A quote from the article:

Based on my adjustments of the numbers Goodland and Anhang have provided, my conservative reanalysis of their claims indicates that animal agriculture contributes a minimum of 30.4% of worldwide greenhouse gases in CO2 equivalents.

[iirtriiiokn]

mic the vegan did a vid on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpmTiHjUEBU