By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Kathleen Shannon for Wyoming News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Elon Musk recently appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, where he discussed everything from the benefits of sleep to gaming. But the conversation quickly shifted to meat, and led to a brief exchange - based on misinformation, rather than facts - that beef does not have a climate impact. Given the show's huge reach and Musk's newfound political influence, the exchange is worth unpacking and fact-checking.

Musk, who was once considered environmentally forward due to his work with electric vehicles, has a notably different stance when it comes to the climate implications of beef. In fact, Musk has tweeted that farming has no impact on climate change, and that killing "some cows" won't make a difference for the environment.

In reality, meat production and consumption are responsible for between 12 and just under 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. It is also a constant drain on our planet's water and land reserves.

Musk's suggestion otherwise reflects his ongoing dismissal of the environmental concerns surrounding animal agriculture. This is particularly concerning given his close relationship with President-elect Donald Trump, who recently appointed Musk to co-lead the new Department of Government Efficiency. Musk and Trump have had public discussions about climate change, with Musk once again downplaying the urgency of global warming by stating, "we don't need to rush" when it comes to addressing the climate crisis.

"The constant barrage of misinformation - spread through ads, inaccurate alternative news programming, and uninformed podcasters and social media influencers - can create an illusory truth effect where repetition makes false claims seem credible," Michelle Amazeen, a professor of mass communication at Boston University, and part of the university's Climate Disinformation Initiative, told Sentient in an email.

Musk's comments on the podcast, though brief, sidestep the growing body of evidence of the significant role the livestock industry plays when it comes to climate change. Let's dissect their exchange, and take a closer look at how two extremely influential men are representing this issue.

What Rogan Got (Almost) Right

Setting the scene, the conversation on animal agriculture started off with a one-off comment from Rogan about the carnivore diet, and how people dismiss it because of "propaganda" against animal agriculture.

Rogan: There is a lot of propaganda that put this thing out there that animal agriculture is the number one contributor to global warming.

Musk: It's rubbish, it's bullshit, it doesn't matter.

Rogan: Not only is it hot bullshit, but the real problem is factory farming. Regenerative farming is carbon neutral.

Rogan is technically correct that animal agriculture is not the number one contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, the EPA puts the transportation sector as the higher contributor, responsible for 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

Factory farming is also an important facet of the issue, as Rogan points out. Since 99 percent of the meat we eat comes from factory farms, impacts from animal agriculture are, by default, attributable to factory farming.

Here's where things go awry: despite Rogan's claim, research shows regenerative farming does not make meat carbon neutral. While it does appear to have some soil health benefits, according to the research, getting carbon to stay put in agricultural soils has not panned out (again, by the research). Factory farming, which operates on a more efficient scale, actually tends to result in lower emissions per unit of meat produced, though the tradeoff is living conditions tend to be worse for animal welfare.

Beyond direct climate pollution, factory farming is responsible for a range of other environmental problems and public health risks. Industrial animal agriculture is a leading cause of water contamination, as runoff from animal waste often ends up in rivers and groundwater, polluting drinking water supplies.

Factory farming is also a key driver of antibiotic resistance, which contributes to the rise of drug-resistant pathogens that threaten human health. These farms are often linked to disease outbreaks, including avian flu, as overcrowded conditions make it easier for diseases to spread from animal to animal and, in some cases, to humans.

All that said, research has shown that changing the way we produce meat to a more land-intensive approach like organic or regenerative (what some call "better meat") would be worse for climate change, not better, even if it might result in some important improvements, to soil health and animal welfare, for example. No matter the method, there is no getting around the urgent need for people in the Global North to reduce their meat consumption in order to stave off the worst global warming scenarios.

What Both Elon Musk and Rogan Got Very Wrong

The exchange went on:

Musk: The animals aren't going to make any difference to global warming. Zero percent, nothing...

It's not gonna make any difference to global warming or the CO2 concentration atmosphere, really, if people eat pure steaks, it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. Irrelevant. I wanted to be super clear about that. Yeah, it will not matter. You will not even be able to measure it. Okay, that's how irrelevant it is.

This statement is patently incorrect.

As already stated, livestock farming contributes between 12 and 19.6 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a range of studies. These figures come from peer-reviewed research conducted by experts in the field, such as the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which uses comprehensive methods to estimate emissions from different sources in the agriculture sector, including enteric fermentation (methane from digestion) and manure management. The lower estimate - 12 percent - comes from an FAO report, but more recent studies by the FAO and its partners suggest livestock emissions could be higher, depending on research methods.

Musk's claim that the impact of meat consumption is "irrelevant" fails to account for these significant potential reductions in emissions. Even reducing global meat consumption a few days a week would result in substantial environmental benefits.

While plant-based meat can help facilitate this transition, the plant-based protein industry is another point of contention for figures like Musk and Rogan - which leads to another part of their exchange that was also incorrect.

Rogan: Do you think that is just propaganda because of people that have a vested interest in things like plant-based meat products and things along those lines? Green energy.

Musk: I think that's part of it. You know that you're only going to get people pushing to avoid meat, like some people, just maybe they go natural, just maybe they just like vegetarians or vegans or whatever ideological, ideological reasons.

In reality, the meat industry remains much bigger, and far more influential than any so-called plant-based propaganda. Plant-based meat sales have gone down in recent years, in part thanks to the meat industry campaigning against plant-based alternatives, labeling them as "ultra-processed." These efforts are designed to steer consumers back to traditional meat.

The meat industry has actively worked to shape public policy and perception through government programs, such as the beef and pork "checkoff" programs. These are initiatives funded by the meat industry to promote the consumption of beef and pork. One of the most famous examples is the "Beef. It's What's for Dinner." campaign, which has been running since 1992. These programs have been highly effective in bolstering the demand for meat, creating an environment where meat consumption is not just normal, but celebrated.

While the plant-based industry is still growing, it simply does not have the same resources to flood the media with messages aimed at shaping consumer behavior and policy in the same way the meat industry has and currently does.

Here is how the conversation on this topic ended between Musk and Rogan:

Rogan: Isn't it funny that is heretic speaking now. That's crazy talk now, nowadays it's like you have to say that we have to eat less meat. That meat is bad.

Musk: Totally eat as much meat as you want, it is not going to make a difference. And if somebody says it does make a difference, I'm like, how will you measure it? And if you can't even measure it, then it's bullshit.

In fact, there are many ways to measure emissions from meat production. The University of Wisconsin-Madison has outlined several methods, including the use of respiration chambers, which capture the gasses animals release during breathing, and the SF6 technique, a more advanced method where a tracer gas is used to measure methane emissions directly from livestock.

Another key tool in the field is the Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM). GLEAM is designed to analyze environmental factors like feed use, land use, greenhouse gas emissions and more. GLEAM's goal is to measure resources used during livestock production and then identify the environmental impacts of farming livestock, arriving at the 12 percent figure cited above.

Scientists Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemeck also took a deep dive into global food systems by analyzing 570 studies across 38,700 farms in 119 countries in 2018. They focused on five key environmental factors: land use, water use (factoring in local water scarcity), greenhouse gas emissions, acidification and eutrophication emissions. Their findings showed that food systems are responsible for about 26 percent of global emissions (a more recent study put the number at around a third), with meat production as the largest driver of food-related emissions, responsible for 57 percent of that sector's pollution.

These models are key to understanding the full scope of livestock's impact on the planet, something Musk and Rogan's dismissal of the issue fails to acknowledge.

The Bottom Line

The impact of the views expressed by Musk and Rogan are not insignificant - The Joe Rogan Experience attracts millions of listeners, and the episode in question alone has been watched over 16 million times on YouTube and viewed by over 51 million on X. It also represents the way misinformation can easily spread on the internet.

"Podcasts are also becoming an increasingly popular medium for news, with nearly half of U.S. adults having listened to at least one in the past month, according to Statista. Both presidential candidates tapped into this trend, appearing on influential podcasts such as Joe Rogan's and Howard Stern's," Amazeen writes to Sentient. "These alternative news sources often lack the commitment to journalistic principles like verification and accuracy."

Musk has also centered himself in the public discourse, now tapped for Trump's incoming administration. Given Trump's previous track record of downplaying climate issues, there is a strong possibility that Musk's views will reinforce the President-elect's views, and his continued support of the meat industry.


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Dawn Attride for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Freda Ross for Texas News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

President-elect Donald Trump has picked long-term ally Brooke Rollins to lead the Department of Agriculture. Her nomination is somewhat of a surprise; Kelly Loeffler, former U.S. senator, was rumored to be Trump's initial pick for the role. Rollins is also a surprising pick because she hasn't worked directly in agricultural policy.

Rollins acted as domestic policy director in the White House during Trump's first term, and has since gone on to preside over the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a Trump-aligned think tank. She grew up on a farm in Glen Rose, Texas, which is known for its farming and ranching activities. Apart from her undergraduate degree in agricultural leadership and development from Texas A&M University, she doesn't appear to have much experience in agricultural policy.

Rollins took to X after the announcement, saying it will be the honor of her life to fight for America's farmers and agricultural communities. "This is big stuff for a small-town ag girl from Glen Rose, TX - truly the American Dream at its greatest. WHO'S READY TO MAKE AGRICULTURE GREAT AGAIN?" she wrote.

Reactions to the Nomination

If confirmed, Rollins will direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its 100,000 employees, running on an annual budget of upwards of $437 billion. The USDA oversees food security, agricultural production, promotes rural development and provides financial aid to farmers and low-income families. The USDA was founded to carry out research on agriculture, and at its core, is a research-centered organization.

"Outside of a misdirected interest in Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland, Brooke Rollins appears to have no agricultural policy track record to comment on. Rollins' AFPI, described as the second Trump administration in waiting, has so little interest in farm policy that there are no agriculture experts listed on its website," Karen Perry Stillerman, deputy director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement.

Stillerman added that this appears to be another example of Trump "doling out cabinet appointments for loyalty rather than expertise." Two of Trump's other picks also came from AFPI -- Linda McMahon, for Education Secretary, and Scott Turner as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Industry groups appear to be optimistic about her nomination, however. The American Farm Bureau Federation said they're encouraged by her statement that she'd "fight for America's farmers and our nation's agricultural communities."

What Can We Expect From Rollins?

Importantly, Rollins has the upcoming new iteration of the Farm Bill ahead of her, which has significant sway over America's food systems. With Republicans having a majority in the House and Senate, the updated Farm Bill could repeal Proposition 12, a high-impact animal welfare law that banned certain kinds of extreme confinement of animals, and the sale of such products in California.

The Farm Bill is also crucial for food emissions and conservation. While Rollins hasn't said much publicly regarding climate change, the think tank she leads has published articles promoting fracking and criticizing the Paris Agreement.

Rollins' new role will likely overlap significantly with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s mission to "Make America Healthy Again," by eliminating certain pesticides and food additives, as well as reforming dietary guidelines.

But Kennedy's opposition to GMOs and pesticides poses "a significant threat" to American agriculture being a global leader when it comes to reducing its carbon footprint while maintaining high yields, Emily Bass, an associate director of federal policy at the Breakthrough Institute, tells Sentient. (Contrary to popular belief, for example, organic foods are usually less climate-friendly.)

"Should she be confirmed as the next U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, we hope Brooke Rollins will be a force to defend against RFK Jr.'s vision, and instead lead a USDA that recognizes the value of technology-forward advances," Bass says.


Dawn Attride wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Rebecca R. Randall for Yes! Magazine.
Broadcast version by Trimmel Gomes for Florida News Connection reporting for the YES! Media-Public News Service Collaboration

This past spring, a colorful poster displayed a ring of emojis at a student table outside the cafeteria at Maritime and Science Technical Academy, a 6–12 school in Miami. Called the climate emotions wheel, the circle was divided into a rainbow of wedges for various emotions: anger in red, sadness in purple, fear in green, positivity in blue. The poster also included a QR code for students to complete a survey about their feelings related to climate. 

Sophomore Sophia Bugarim remembers taking the survey. To the first question—“Do you experience any of these climate emotions?”—Bugarim answered “fear.” The next question narrowed down the four core emotions into more specifics. This time Bugarim selected “worry.” 

“I feel worried that one day I’ll be in a situation where I have to leave my house, and I’ll come back and have no idea what it will look like,” says Bugarim, who recalled her survey answers on an October day when school had been canceled due to the possibility of storm water surge and high winds. While Miami was not in Hurricane Milton’s path, Bugarim wonders how soon the city will be in the path of another storm. “These storms are getting worse. There was a hurricane last week in Tallahassee. Next week gets me worried. It’s very unpredictable.”

Sebastian Navarro, who manned the table as sustainability ambassador during his senior year, thinks students at Maritime and Science Technical Academy probably learn about climate change more than others in the district due to the school’s focus on maritime sciences. He says students visit the reefs just offshore from the beachside school. But that classwork is focused on cognitive learning, not discussion about feelings. 

On the climate emotions survey, when given options for what worries them most about climate change, about one-third of students said sea level rise. Another third said biodiversity loss and coral bleaching. 

Sarah Newman, executive director of the Climate Mental Health Network, says climate change adds another layer of mental health risk for youth and can deepen existing inequities. In 2021, Newman founded the Network to provide solutions beyond traditional therapy, which can be cost-prohibitive and faces ongoing provider shortages. 

She sees the climate emotions wheel as a supplement to mental health therapy and believes schools are a key place to address mental health amid a changing climate. This is a stark contrast with the conservative Project 2025, which aims to erase climate change from public education and the federal government entirely. Newman sees the importance in grassroots solutions to support individuals and communities impacted by the changing climate, regardless of what’s happening in Washington, D.C. 

“Having climate anxiety is a normal response to the climate crisis, so if you respond to what is a societal issue with an individual approach, you’re isolating someone’s experience to a clinical setting,” she says. “Because it’s a collective experience, the process of navigating our climate emotions, managing them, and healing needs to be done in community with others.” 

A New Tool

Multiple reports suggest there is plenty of room for improvement to deepen climate content across subjects and add more social and emotional learning in public schools in the United States. On the National Center for Science Education’s 2020 report card, Florida received a D for its lack of climate change content in state science standards. The center graded 20 states at no higher than a C+, while 21 states, which all use the Next Generation Science Standards, received a B+.

Then in 2022, the North American Association for Environmental Education found only 37% of states included climate change in one subject in addition to science (usually social studies), and only 10% of climate change content addressed the socio-emotional learning dimensions of the crisis.

A 2023 report led by the American Psychological Association and others concurs that more school-based and health-system solutions are needed. Newman sees the climate emotions wheel as a tool that educators everywhere can begin using now. It’s a bottom-up approach that can skirt the obstacles being thrown up in institutions and governments at all levels.

Finnish environmental theologian Panu Pihkala, who popularized the idea that “climate emotions” is a more useful term than “climate anxiety,” consulted with the Climate Mental Health Network to create the climate emotions wheel. It is now available in 30 languages, including Spanish, Kiswahili, and Bengali, and used in a variety of settings.

“Everything about the school day is a learning experience. It’s not just the curriculum being directed by the teacher,” said Michele Drucker, who heads the Miami-Dade County Council Parent Teacher Association environmental committee.

Drucker also ran a sustainability ambassador program in local high schools, which Navarro completed during his lunch hours. Navarro invited students to enter a drawing for completing climate actions such as bringing a reusable water bottle, using share tables for uneaten food at lunch, and eliminating single-use plastics. This is also where Navarro shared the climate emotions wheel, which he says received a lot of engagement and seemed to bump up participation in the weeks that followed.

Navarro says the wheel helped generate hallway conversations about climate, too, as peers asked each other: “Which emoji are you?”

Climate Emotions in the Classroom

In other schools, teachers are adding the climate emotions wheel to their coursework.

“One of the biggest problems with climate education is not a lack of knowledge,” says Kimberly Williams, a science teacher at Smithtown High School West on Long Island in New York. She began integrating emotional support into her climate change units a few years ago. She says her classes would start the year “discouraged and apathetic,” and that “it’s easy for the students to feel ‘there’s nothing I can do, so I should do nothing.’”

Williams tasked her students with using the paint tool on a tablet to shade portions in a circle representing the degree to which they were feeling a climate emotion. A guide then helped them describe their emotions and evaluate their own strengths and possible contributions to climate solutions.

Williams concedes that most science teachers do not include this kind of social and emotional learning into their lessons: “They don’t see the two as interwoven, and I don’t see the two as something you can separate.”

Williams says in her district, most teachers only “dance around the subject” in an effort to avoid the politics of climate change. To her, that indicates that teachers aren’t connecting it to students’ lives. “They’re showing a graph,” not saying, “‘Why do you think that is?’ or ‘What we can do about it?’”

In nearby New York City, 52% of teachers in a survey said they teach about climate change, but most only dedicate a few hours per year. A recent state bill, which died at the end of the 2024 legislative session, would have mandated that all grades and subject matters include climate.

This bill would have addressed mental health, as well, said Elissa Teles Muñoz, the K–12 programming manager for the Climate Mental Health Network, at a recent Climate Week NYC panel. 

“When there is climate education … it does need to include safeguards for youth mental health,” said Muñoz, who helped write the bill with the National Wildlife Federation. “It’s not responsible to drop a bomb on a child’s brain.”

Growing Support From the Grassroots

The climate emotions wheel relies on grassroots leaders—teachers, parents, or others—to find ways to implement it, which may limit its reach and impact.

Some teachers may not feel supported to include the exercise. Susan Clayton, a conservation psychologist who studies K–12 climate education, considered teacher surveys alongside local politics. She found that teachers from states where school or government leaders oppose climate education felt more anxious. For example, the 7% of teachers in Clayton’s sample who were from Florida reported significantly higher levels of climate anxiety.

But Clayton found that when teachers perceived parental support for climate education, they were more likely to talk to students about climate emotions. 

In Miami-Dade public schools, Drucker is bolstered by how the PTA can bypass some state or district politics with grassroots action at schools. She advocated for years for systems-level climate action, though Florida schools lack state support for fully embracing climate action. And that obstacle is only getting worse: Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill this spring that strikes the phrase “climate change” from state law entirely.

Newman also believes there’s power in hyperlocal action. One of the climate emotions wheel’s strengths may be that it empowers students. 

For Williams’ part, she includes the climate emotions exercise to help students move toward action. At the end of her courses, she asks students to complete the survey again and asks what they would modify from their earlier responses. One student updated the colors in the wheel and said she felt a little more empowered to take her own actions once she wrote them down.

Navarro says he is still working through climate emotions, but he feels encouraged by peer support in the environmental clubs at his school. “You have the opportunity to advocate for different causes,” he says. Recently, students acted on their concerns by advocating for and landing the district electric buses. Navarro says it feels good to know that “you’re actually making a difference.”


Rebecca R. Randall wrote this article for Yes! Magazine.


get more stories like this via email

Michigan has poured $1 billion into electric-vehicle battery projects, with another billion pledged, but delays have stalled hiring for most of the 11,000 promised jobs. Now, some critics are raising concerns over the subsidies for the projects.

Economic experts say delays are common in large-scale projects, and it's too early to call this effort a bust.

Brad Hershbein, a senior economist for the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, cited slower EV demand and opposition from residents who don't want large factories in their neighborhoods. He said limited job postings are another key factor.

"Where there have been some job postings, [they] are typically for engineers and for doing design, and managers," he said, "and there's still a lot of uncertainty coming ahead with the new presidential administration - where some of the incentives that have been slated to be given out may not be given out in the end."

A 2024 poll revealed that while 55% of Michigan voters believe it's important for the state to compete in electric-vehicle manufacturing, only about one in four would consider purchasing an EV as their next vehicle.

Despite delays, Michigan continues to prepare for EV battery job growth. In western Michigan, educators are training a workforce for Ford's 2026 factory, and Western Michigan University announced a $700,000 plan to boost training for battery and semiconductor jobs.

Hershbein noted that developers often overpromise.

"It may turn out that, years from now, this was a good investment to try to spur greater production of electronic vehicles, electric vehicles and jobs for them," he said. "We just don't know yet. It's going to depend on how the next several years play out."

In December 2023, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a plan to make all of Michigan's state vehicles zero-emission by 2040.


get more stories like this via email